UP 


€f)e  amber.st  Books 


THE   LIBERAL   COLLEGE 


THE 
LIBERAL    COLLEGE 


BY 


ALEXANDER   MEIKLEJOHN 

PRESIDENT  OF   AMHERST  COLLEGE 


BOSTON 
MARSHALL  JONES  COMPANY 

1920 


COPYRIGHT-IQ20-BY 
MARSHALL  JONES  COMPANY 


THE'PlIMPTON'PRESS'NORWOOD'MASS'U-S'A 


To 

E.  F.  AND  N.  A.  L.  V. 


STATE  TfA.-.l.fcRl'    COIUEOC 
CANTA   BAF<3ARA.   CALIFORNIA 


PREFACE 

THE  title  of  this  book  was  chosen  by  the  managing 
editor  of  the  series  to  which  it  belongs.  It  is 
appropriate,  I  think,  that  the  title  page  of  the 
first  of  the  Amherst  Books  should  thus  express  the  authority 
of  the  Board  and  of  the  purpose  by  which  the  series  is  to 
be  dominated.  Amherst  College  enters  upon  the  publi- 
cation of  these  books  with  very  high  hopes.  It  is  willing 
to  set  aside  desires  far  more  compelling  than  that  of  a 
writer  for  his  title,  if  thereby  something  may  be  attempted 
in  honor  of  the  legend  Terras  Irradient. 

The  editor's  justification  of  the  title  is  that  it  indicates 
accurately,  as  it  does,  the  subject-matter  of  the  book. 
The  writer,  however,  would  have  preferred  another  title. 
He  would  have  chosen  the  name  "Making  Minds,"  and  that 
largely  because  it  invites  misunderstanding.  I  am  sure 
the  editor  will  reward  the  willing  submission  of  the  writer 
by  allowing  him  to  use  a  few  words  in  the  Preface  to  indicate 
the  notion  which  he  would  have  liked  to  express. 

The  book  itself  is  a  collection  of  papers  and  addresses 
dealing  with  the  liberal  college.  From  cover  to  cover  it 
expresses  the  conviction  that  liberal  study  enriches  and 
strengthens  the  lives  of  individual  men  and  of  groups  of 
men.  It  is  based  upon  the  belief  that  for  a  man  and  for 
his  fellows  it  is  well  that  he  have  a  good  mind,  if  possible 
an  excellent  or  even  a  distinguished  mind. 

But  with  respect  to  such  a  belief  as  this  misunderstand- 
ings flourish  and  abound.  In  general  people  have  a  peculiar 
interest  in  the  processes  by  which  they  themselves  were 
made.  And  the  discussion  of  those  processes  and  especially 
the  suggestion  that  they  might  have  been  better  than  they 
were  does  not,  for  obvious  reasons,  conduce  to  calmness 
of  mood.  Psychologically  it  is  not  hard  to  understand 


viii  PREFACE 

why  each  man  yearns  to  think  his  college  best  and  hesi- 
tates to  agree  that  changes  might  make  it  better.  For  this 
and  for  many  other  reasons  men  are  not  thinking  thoughts 
when  they  discuss  the  teaching  process.  They  are  rather 
giving  voice  to  affections,  purposes,  prejudices,  desires; 
and  the  terms  which  they  employ  vary  in  quite  undis- 
coverable  ways  with  the  emotional  qualities  which  lie 
behind  them. 

In  such  a  field  as  this  misunderstandings  are  sure  to  come. 
With  respect  to  them  we  may  take  either  of  two  lines  of 
action.  We  may  ignore  them  in  the  hope  that  they  will 
go  away,  or  we  may  invite  them  to  make  themselves  at 
home  with  the  hope  that  they  will  lose  the  hostile  quality 
of  the  alien.  My  own  choice  would  be  that  of  ready  hos- 
pitality. It  is  good  to  be  as  well  and  as  quickly  as  possible 
acquainted  with  the  misunderstandings  which  may  visit 
you.  Acquaintance  tends  toward  understanding  and  for 
misunderstandings  there  is  no  other  cure. 

If  then  the  Editor  will  allow,  I  should  like  to  present  in 
this  short  Preface  three  misunderstandings  which  regularly 
call  upon  us.  I  should  like  also  to  devote  the  Introduction 
to  a  genuine  attempt  at  making  their  acquaintance. 

If  one  says  that  the  purpose  of  the  liberal  college  is  to 
make  minds,  these  misunderstandings  or,  shall  I  say, 
objections  immediately  appear.  Education,  we  shall  be 
told,  should  make  not  minds  of  men,  but  Men.  And 
again  it  will  be  said  that  it  is  nonsense  to  speak  of  making 
minds  or  making  men;  such  living  things  as  these  must 
grow;  they  are  not  made.  And  finally  we  shall  be  told 
that  whether  the  process  be  one  of  minds  or  of  men,  be  one 
of  growth  or  of  manufacture,  the  college  has  little  to  do  with 
the  achievement  of  the  end;  the  college  tends  to  take 
itself  too  seriously;  men  learn  to  live  by  living  and  no  kv 
spending  four  short  years  cut  off  from  life  by  college  wah~ 
and  college  customs. 

To  consider  these  misunderstandings  will  be  the  chief 
purpose  of  our  Introduction. 


CONTENTS 

MAKING  MINDS  —  AN  INTRODUCTION 
PART  I.     THE  DETERMINING  PURPOSE 

I.     WHAT   THE    LIBERAL    COLLEGE    IS   NOT 
II.     WHAT   THE    LIBERAL    COLLEGE    IS 


III.  WHAT   THE    COLLEGE    PREPARES    FOR      .... 

IV.  MAKING   THE    MIND   OF    A   NATION 

PART  II.  THE  PARTICIPANTS  IN  THE  PROCESS    ... 

I.  THE  COLLEGE  AS  CRITIC  ........ 

II.  THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  COLLEGE 
III.  STUDENT  ACTIVITIES  IN  THE  COLLEGE    ... 

PART  III.     DISCUSSIONS  IN  EDUCATIONAL  THEORY  .     . 

I.     LOGIC    IN   THE    COLLEGE    CURRICULUM 
II.     IS    MENTAL   TRAINING   A   MYTH  ?        . 

PART   IV.     THE  CURRICULUM 

I.  A  COURSE  FOR  FRESHMEN 

II.  A  CURRICULUM  FOR  A  LIBERAL  COLLEGE    .    . 
III.  A  REORGANIZATION  OF  THE  COLLEGE  CURRICULUM 

A  FINAL  WORD 


THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 


THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 


MAKING  MINDS  — AN  INTRODUCTION 

INTRODUCTIONS  are  of  necessity  rather  formal  affairs 
with  some  regard  for  rules  and  proprieties.  Now  there 
is  one  rule  with  respect  to  the  meeting  of  arguments 
which  may  at  least  be  mentioned  as  our  misunderstanding 
friends  draw  near.  It  is  this,  —  a  number  of  different 
arguments  may  not  properly  oppose  another  argument 
if  they  are  opposed  to  each  other.  They  have  no  right  to 
ask  a  common  enemy  to  kill  them  off  if  they  have  within 
themselves  the  possibility  of  mutual  extermination.  In 
a  word,  arguments  must  settle  their  own  differences  before 
they  attempt  to  settle  a  common  foe.  One  need  not  press 
the  point;  it  is  sufficient  to  know  that  whether  pressed  or 
not  the  principle  is  at  work  in  the  inevitable  logic  of  the 
situation. 

I 

The  objection  that  the  college  should  make  Men  rather 
than  Minds  is  the  most  aggressive  and  headstrong  of  our 
opponents.  Boys  should  be  prepared  for  life,  it  says, 
not  for  the  reading  of  books  or  the  spinning  of  theories. 
Education  should  be  practical;  by  it  bodies  should  be 
strengthened,  friendships  shnnljhe  established,  manners 
should  be  acquiredT  spirits  should  be  purified,  apprecia- 
tions 'sKould  be  enrirhed  and  dirprted^he  will  should  be 
fortified  and  inspired  and  subjugated,  all  the  powers  of  body, 
mind  and  soul  should  be  so  trained  and  correlated  that  from 
them  shall  be  made  such  a  man  as  a  man  should  be. 

This  argument  is  hard  to  meet  because  it  very  discourte- 

3 


4  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

ously  gives  us  at  once  the  feeling  of  being  not  merely  in 
the  wrong  but  quite  disgracefully  so.  Without  intending 
it  we  seem  to  have  said  that  bodies  should  not  be  strong 
and  that  wills  might  just  as  well  be  weak,  and  that  ap- 
preciations are  of  no  importance,  and  that  the  spirit  of  man 
is  a  matter  of  no  concern  to  us.  Why  do  we  seem  to  have 
said  this?  It  is  because  the  phrase,  "Not  minds  but  Men" 
seems  to  demand  as  its  opposite  "Not  men  but  Minds. 
But  we  had  no  intention  of  saying  this.  We  did  not  ad- 
vocate the  making  of  minds  for  the  sake  of  opposing  the 
making  of  men.  We  had  rather  supposed  that  the  making 
of  minds  was  just  a  part  of  the  making  of  men.  In  fact, 
when  we  said  "Making  Minds"  we  meant  "Making  the 
minds  of  Men."  Let  us  then  protest  at  once  that  we  are 
not  hostile  to  the  making  of  men;  we  are  rather  modestly 
engaged  in  it  and  are  meanwhile  keeping  an  eye  on  the 
third  approaching  objection  which  is  waiting  to  jump  at 
us  for  taking  too  seriously  our  part  in  the  process. 

This  demand  that  a  teacher  of  physics,  for  example, 
should  make  not  minds  but  men  is  of  the  same  general 
value  as  would  be  the  assertion  that  a  farmer  should  grow 
not  wheat  but  men.  What  is  the  good  of  food  stuffs, 
one  asks;  are  they  not  for  the  feeding,  the  nourishing  of 
men?  And  if  they  are,  then  why  does  not  the  farmer 
proceed  directly  to  the  end,  why  waste  his  time  in  seed  and 
soil  and  all  that  care  called  agriculture;  why  not  make  men 
at  once;  why  throw  one's  hours  away  on  crops?  It  is  a 
sordid  soul  that  values  crops  above  the  men  for  whom 
the  crops  exist. 

One  can  imagine  a  farmer  somewhat  bewildered  by  such 
an  attack  as  this.  And  many  a  teacher  is  bewildered  too. 
Are  men  more  important  than  food  ?  Yes,  food  is  for  men. 
Are  men  more  important  than  minds?  Yes,  minds  are 
for  men.  Does  it  then  follow  that  the  farmer  should  grow 
men  in  his  wheat  fields,  or  that  teachers  of  physics  should 
construct  men  in  the  laboratory  rather  than  make  pupils 
wise  in  the  realm  of  physics? 


MAKING  MINDS  5 

The  trouble  with  the  argument  is  that  it  is  so  true  that 
it  cannot  help  becoming  false  if  one  dwells  upon  it.  It  is 
the  lazy  fallacy  which  confuses  ends  and  means.  It  is  a 
favorite  fallacy  of  practical  men  in  fields  with  which  their 
practice  has  not  made  them  familiar.  It  is  the  fallacy  of 
those  who  say  "Give  us  results"  and  who  have  no  time  to 
inquire  what  results  are  wanted  nor  how  they  may  be 
gotten.  It  is  also  the  fallacy  of  the  sentimentalists  who 
opine  that  telling  a  boy  to  be  a  man  will  make  him  one 
or  that  willing  to  be  a  man  is  all  that  one  needs  in  the  way 
of  training  and  study. 

But  now  we  must  stop  calling  names  and  meet  our  guest 
with  proper  decorum  and  respect.  He  comes  suspecting  that 
we  are  hostile  to  him,  that  we  oppose  minds  to  his  men. 
We  must  try  to  make  him  see  that  this  supposed  hostility 
is  an  illusion,  a  misunderstanding.  How  shall  we  do  it? 

First  let  us  assure  him  that  we  know  the  limitations  of 
the  mind  and  of  its  training.  All  the  values  of  life,  all 
the  things  worth  while  in  life  are  found  in  the  feelings, 
the  emotions,  the  sentiments  of  men.  And  further,  all  the 
ways  of  realizing  these  values  lie  in  the  realm  of  will,  of 
action.  The  mind,  in  the  narrow  sense,  neither  feels  nor 
acts,  neither  is  value  nor  makes  value.  But  on  the  other 
hand  the  mind  is  the  informing  of  the  feelings  and  the 
directing  of  the  actions.  It  is  the  guide  which  makes  feel- 
ings delicate  and  true,  which  makes  actions  precise  and  suc- 
cessful. The  mind  is  not  all  of  life  but  it  is  the  intelligence 
which  directs  life  to  the  achievement  of  its  ends.  This  is 
what  we  mean  when  we  say  that  intelligence  is  power  —  not 
that  it  acts,  but  that  it  makes  action  successful.  It  is  the 
eye  which  sees  the  rapier's  mark  but  not  the  hand  which 
it  directs  to  grasp  and  thrust  the  weapon  to  the  spot. 

A  second  observation  follows  closely  upon  the  first.  We 
see  that  four  short  years  of  teaching  minds  is  only  a  little 
part  of  human  education.  All  that  men  are  and  do  must 
be  developed  and  trained.  And  in  the  doing  of  this  all 
human  institutions,  all  human  experiences  have  a  part. 


6  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

The  home,  the  church,  the  school,  playnries,  friends, 
climate,  food,  health,  employers,  servants,  social  relations 
of  every  sort,  all  these  are  making  men,  making  a  man 
for  seventy  years,  making  him  until  his  day  is  done.  Amidst 
all  this  the  special  training  of  the  college  course  is  rather 
a  little  thing.  At  any  rate  it  is  a  very  special  thing,  as 
special  and  peculiar  a  thing  as  books  are  in  the  material 
world,  those  collections  of  paper  pages  with  ink-marks 
on  them,  as  special  as  words  are  among  the  actions  of  men 
and  nature,  those  sounds  made  by  the  human  throat  and 
lips.  In  terms  of  quantity  the  college  course  is  not  a  major 
part  of  education.  We  count  it  some  forty  hours  a  week 
for  thirty  to  forty  weeks  in  each  of  the  four  years  from 
seventeen  or  eighteen  years  of  age  to  twenty-one  or  twenty- 
two.  Not  all  of  one's  education  is  acquired  in  these  hours. 

And  now  since  we  are  speaking  in  the  spirit  of  friendship 
rather  than  of  controversy,  we  must  tell  our  inquiring  guest 
what  we  actually  do  along  this  line  of  his  suggestion.  There 
are  three  aspects  of  our  attitude  of  which  he  should  approve. 

First,  we  count  upon  the  wider  education  which  precedes 
the  college  training  and  upon  that  which  follows  it.  The 
college  experience  we  recognize  as  an  episode,  one  of  peculiar 
value,  and  yet  as  following  from  earlier  experience  and  as 
leading  into  later  living.  In  general  we  must  send  young 
men  back  again  into  the  society  from  which  they  came, 
not  as  they  were  but  better  trained  in  mind  for  that  society 
than  any  other  kind  of  living  would  have  made  them. 

Second,  we  recognize  that  during  these  four  years,  the 
life  of  the  individual  student  and  the  social  life  of  the  com- 
munity must  be  maintained,  must  be  kept  vigorous,  fine, 
and  high  in  quality.  A  college  must  be  a  good  place  in 
which  to  live  as  well  as  a  good  place  in  which  to  study. 
For  this  reason  we  have  our  chapel  and  church,  our  fra- 
ternity houses  and  dormitories,  our  athletic  games  and 
other  student  activities,  our  friendships  of  pupils  and 
teachers  each  with  his  fellows  and  each  with  the  members 
of  the  other  group.  Taking  them  all  in  all.  I  doubt  if 


MAKING  MINDS  7 

there  are  better  communities  in  all  our  social  scheme  than 
are  our  colleges. 

And  finally  let  us  make  one  genuine  concession  in  the 
hope  of  friendly  understanding.  Let  us  admit  that  when 
we  speak  of  Making  Minds  the  meaning  which  we  give 
to  Mind  is  a  very  broad  one.  Judge  us  by  our  deeds  and 
you  will  see.  Our  course  of  study  includes  the  careful 
training  of  the  body  for  three  of  the  four  years  of  residence, 
our  teaching  of  music,  of  drama  and  of  literature  seeks 
to  inspire  as  well  as  to  inform  the  appreciations;  (to  many 
of  us  it  seems  that  other  arts  should  make  this  contribution 
greater  than  it  is);  the  college  discipline  or  lack  of  it  in- 
tends to  bring  the  will  to  fairness  and  to  strength  of  char- 
acter; but  more  than  all  things  else  the  teacher,  teaching 
his  subject,  captures  his  student  for  the  kind  of  life  he 
thinks  worth  while;  to  go  to  college  is  to  live  in  fellowship 
with  students  and  teachers;  it  is  their  personalities  which 
give  its  liberal  meaning  to  the  phrase  "Making  Minds. 

ii 

Our  second  guest  comes  with  the  objection  that  "Mak- 
ing" is  not  a  term  to  apply  to  minds;  "Minds,"  he  says, 
"are  not  made;  they  grow."  What  shall  we  answer? 
There  is  no  genuine  difference  here.  Or  rather,  if  there 
is  a  difference,  our  critic  is  right.  Only  in  a  certain  peculiar 
sense  may  we  speak  of  making  minds.  They  are  not  made, 
as  if  they  were  constructed,  but  they  are  made  to  grow  — 
made,  by  proper  cultivation,  to  grow  properly. 

The  objection  to  external  or  mechanical  descriptions  of 
education  is  a  thoroughly  valid  one.  No  interpretation 
of  teaching  is  more  fallacious  than  that  which  regards  the 
teacher  as  giving  learning  or  knowledge  or  wisdom  to 
the  pupil,  putting  this  desirable  attribute  into  him.  The 
teacher  may  feel  wisdom  going  out  of  him  in  the  teaching 
process,  but,  strictly  speaking,  he  cannot  be  sure  that  the 
pupil  is  taking  it  in.  The  relation  of  teacher  and  pupil 
is  always  a  somewhat  mystical  one.  Learning  is  chiefly 


8  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

by  imitation  or  by  contagion.  If  a  teacher  is  working 
and  is  influential,  pupils  will  learn  to  work;  if  a  teacher  is 
trying  to  make  others  work,  pupils  will  learn  to  do  that  too; 
if  a  teacher  loves  wisdom  wisely,  pupils  will  love  it  as  well. 

And  yet  we  must  not  let  the  principle  of  growth  run 
riot.  A  college  is  not  a  hot-house  in  which  the  whole 
being  with  all  its  powers  is  to  be  forced  into  early  flowering. 
College  teachers  are  men  of  special  powers;  they  are  quite 
different  in  type  from  other  men;  they  have  very  different 
and  very  special  lessons  to  impart.  It  is  essential  that 
they  do  their  special  work  because  they  can  do  it  and  others 
cannot,  and  most  of  all  because  the  opportunity  for  it  is 
very  brief.  The  mere  establishing  of  an  "atmosphere" 
for  student  growth  is  not  enough.  The  "aromatic"  theory 
of  education  is  almost  as  bad  and  certainly  far  more  un- 
wholesome than  the  mechanical  one.  A  college  is  a  place 
where  something  is  to  happen  and  to  happen  definitely 
because  certain  men  know  what  they  intend,  and  are  de- 
termined that  what  they  intend  shall  be  accomplished. 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  noted  that  with  respect 
to  the  relation  of  learning  to  liTe  there  are  three  types  of 
able  teachers.  Of  these  three  types,  two  should  be  kept 
away  from  a  college  by  every  device  which  the  art  of  man 
can  imagine.  The  third  should  be  sought  after  as  men  of 
old  sought  after  the  philosopher's  stone  or  the  secret  of 
perpetual  youth,  though  one  would  hope  with  somewhat 
more  success. 

First  there  are  men  who  are  strong  among  their  fellows 
but  whose  strength  comes  from  sources  other  than  abstract 
knowledge.  They  are  men  who  have  built  up  power  by 
experience  in  practical  affairs,  by  sentiment,  by  will,  or  in 
any  other  way  than  by  the  use  of  books  and  other  instru- 
ments of  study. 

Second,  there  are  men  well  versed  in  books,  learned  in 
scholarship  of  certain  sorts,  masters  of  some  special  aspects 
of  a  field  of  knowledge,  who  are  yet  negligible  as  men  among 
their  fellows;  no  one  feels  them  to  be  important. 


MAKING  MINDS  9 

Both  these  types  of  men  the  college  should  avoid  when 
choosing  teachers  —  avoid  them  as  a  merchant  would 
shun  the  advertising  of  a  competitor's  wares.  The  college 
is  engaged  in  making  men  stronger  and  finer  by  means  of 
learning.  It  must  not  then  take  as  its  agents  men  who 
achieve  strength  primarily  in  other  ways,  nor  men  who 
have  failed  to  achieve  it  in  this  way.  As  against  these 
the  college  teacher  of  the  third  type  is  a  man  who  is  power- 
ful among  his  fellows  but  whose  power  springs  from  the 
studying  which  he  has  done,  from  the  learning  which  he 
loves  and  is.  If  teachers  are  of  this  type  we  may  let  young 
people  grow  in  their  presence  with  the  assurance  that  they 
will  grow  properly  in  the  special  way  in  which  a  college 
seeks  to  make  a  student  grow. 

in 

Our  third  objection  has  already  had  its  say.  In  fact 
we  have  been  speaking  for  it  or  it  for  us  as  we  have  sought 
to  come  to  understanding  with  its  fellows. 

The  college  training  is  a  limited,  special  thing.  It 
is  not  all  of  education,  it  is  not  even  all  the  education 
which  one  receives  during  the  four  years  of  its  duration. 
And  yet  it  counts  —  counts  heavily  in  making  men,  in 
making  groups  of  men.  Out  of  the  quiet  little  places  where 
men  and  boys  assemble  for  study  of  human  life  and  of  the 
world  —  out  of  those  places  has  shone  forth  a  light  which 
has  illumined  human  life,  which  has  made  clearer  the  world 
in  which  we  live.  These  colleges  are  neither  big  nor  strong 
nor  independent  in  external  ways.  They  are  like  nervous 
centres  in  an  organism,  —  not  very  large  in  bulk,  not  self- 
sufficient,  not  adequate  for  action  in  the  world  of  things 
and  facts.  And  yet  they  are  in  charge  of  action,  decide 
what  it  shall  be,  and  see  that  it  is  done.  Men  everywhere 
are  making  human  life,  are  making  mankind  to  be  a 
stronger,  finer  thing  than  it  has  been.  And  in  the  doing 
of  that  task,  they  choose  to  set  aside  some  quiet  groups 
for  Making  Minds.  Those  groups  are  Liberal  Colleges. 


PART  I 
THE  DETERMINING  PURPOSE 

THESE  four  papers  are  four  different  attempts  to 
express  the  notion  which  underlies  liberal  college 
teaching. 

The  first  paper,  "What  the  College  is  Not,"  was  given 
at  the  one  hundredth  anniversary  of  the  founding  of  Alle- 
gheny College  on  June  23,  1915.  It  was  the  closing  paper 
of  a  long  series  dealing  with  the  work  of  the  American 
College.  It  is  a  study  of  the  purpose  of  the  college  as  re- 
vealed in  the  minds  of  its  founders.  It  challenges  the 
statement  that  the  old  college,  having  as  a  major  aim  the 
educating  of  ministers,  was  therefore  professional  in  intent. 
It  asks  what  kind  of  education  was  regarded  as  good  for  the 
ministers  of  older  days  and  may  be  equally  good  for  those 
of  a  later  time. 

The  second  paper,  "What  the  College  is,"  was  given  as 
an  inaugural  address  of  the  President  of  Amherst  College, 
October  16,  1912.  It  is  a  consideration  of  the  purpose  of 
the  college  as  perceived  by  the  college  teacher.  It  seeks, 
therefore,  to  define  the  college  endeavor  as  it  is  construed 
and  felt  by  the  teachers  and  scholars  who,  in  the  deepest 
sense,  are  the  college. 

The  third  paper,  "What  does  the  College  Prepare  for," 
is  a  popular  talk  which  has  been  given  many  times  to  differ- 
ent audiences  and  perhaps,  alas,  more  than  once  to  the 
same  audience.  It  is  intended  primarily  to  state  the 
purpose  of  the  college  to  persons  who  are  not  familiar  with 
college  teaching,  or  who,  having  had  such  familiarity,  have 
lost  it.  It  is  a  controversial  paper  making  its  points,  or 
trying  to  make  them,  over-sharply  as  one  is  tempted  to  do 

ii 


12  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

when  speaking  to  audiences  at  whom  one  has-  only  a  single 
chance,  or  with  whose  point  of  view  one  is  radically  out  of 
touch. 

The  fourth  paper,  "Making  the  Mind  of  a  Nation,"  is 
an  extract  from  a  speech  delivered  at  an  Amherst  Alumni 
banquet  in  Boston,  February  4,  1916.  It  tries  to  indicate  to 
the  graduates  of  a  college  what  part  they  have  to  play  in 
building  up  the  life  of  a  nation.  It  demands  that  we 
achieve  for  the  nation  as  a  whole  the  same  intellectual 
integrity  and  coherence  which  every  good  teacher  seeks  to 
fix  upon  the  spirit  of  the  individual  student. 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS  NOT 

I  MUST  begin  this  paper  by  asking  a  question  —  a  ques- 
tion addressed  to  the  audience.  The  answer  is  a  matter  of 
vital  concern  to  me.  I  wish  to  ask  you  whether  from  one 
statement  which  I  shall  give  another  logically  follows.  If 
we  say  that  everything  that  could  be  said  about  the  Ameri- 
can college  has  been  said,  does  it  follow  that  there  is  noth- 
ing more  to  say  ?  My  own  opinion  is  that  it  does  not  follow 
at  all  and  I  appeal  to  the  science  of  logic  for  justification. 
That  science  tells  us  that  whatever  has  been  said  in  one 
way  can  be  said  again  in  another,  and  that  perhaps  just 
such  translation  into  other  forms  is  the  chief  task  of  what  we 
call  thinking.  And  especially  logic  tells  us  that  whatever 
has  been  said  in  affirmative  terms  may  often,  to  great  ad- 
vantage, be  expressed  in  negative  terms. 

If  it  is  truly  said  that  "John  is  in  Boston,"  it  is  also  safe 
to  remark  that  "John  is  not  in  New  York,"  and  this  latter 
statement  may  be  of  much  greater  importance  to  some  of 
John's  friends.  There  is,  of  course,  a  difficulty,  namely, 
that  it  is  hard  to  exhaust  the  content  of  the  negative  judg- 
ment. When  once  you  start  on  this  process  the  trouble  is 
not  to  find  something  to  say  but  to  tell  where  to  stop  in 
the  illimitable  expanse  which  lies  before  you.  It  is  well 
enough  to  say  that  John  is  not  in  New  York,  but  if  you 
proceed  to  tell  all  the  places  in  which  John  is  not,  consider- 
able time  must  be  allowed  for  the  operation.  While,  there- 
fore, I  insist  that  this  logical  principle  be  accepted  in  order 
that  I  may  have  a  subject  to  talk  about,  I  beg  the  audience 
not  to  be  terrified  by  its  possibilities.  For  general  purposes, 
logical  principles  must  be  applied  sparingly  and  with  dis- 

13 


i4  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

cretion.     It  is  quite  possible  to  have  too  much  of  a  good 
thing. 

But  the  one  point  on  which  I  do  insist  is  that  in  spite  of 
all  the  wisdom  of  these  ten  wise  men  who  have  preceded  me 
there  is  still  something  left  to  consider.  They  have  told 
you  what  the  college  is.  I  may  try  to  tell  you  what  it  is 
not.  They  have  told  you  what  the  college  has,  what  it 
does,  what  it  has  accomplished,  what  it  dreams,  what  it 
will  be  in  the  days  to  come.  Somewhere  within  the  field 
of  what  it  has  not,  what  it  does  not  do,  what  it  has  not  done, 
what  it  does  not  dream,  what  it  will  not  be  —  somewhere 
within  this  field,  for  which  one  might  claim  infinite  time, 
there  lies  the  subject  of  this  paper. 

If,  then,  we  were  with  any  fullness  to  define  the  function 
of  the  college  in  negative  terms  it  would  be  necessary  to 
show  and  to  explain  that  the  college  is  not  a  high  school, 
not  a  professional  school,  not  a  university,  nor  any  part 
thereof.  But  everyone  knows  that  there  are  many  kinds 
of  high  school,  many  types  of  professional  school,  many 
separate  schools  within  a  university.  If  we  should  discuss 
each  one  of  these  separation  et  seriatim,  showing  that 
the  college  is  not  any  one  of  them,  is  different  from  them 
all,  I  fear  that  the  consequence  for  you  would  be  much 
weariness  of  the  flesh  and  great  vexation  of  the  spirit. 
But  again  the  kindly  science  of  logic  will  hurry  to  our 
rescue.  That  science  has  another  valuable  principle,  viz., 
that  there  is  no  sense  in  denying  a  statement  unless  someone 
has  asserted  it.  What  assertions,  then,  of  the  identity 
of  the  college  with  other  institutions  are  just  now  being 
made  with  sufficient  insistence  to  demand  our  attention? 
There  are  teachers  who  seem  to  find  little  difference  between 
the  college  and  the  high  school,  but  their  lack  of  perception 
is  not  very  important.  We  are  just  emerging  from  a  period 
in  which  the  college  has  been  regarded  as  a  part  of  the 
university  and  has  been  identified  with  the  whole  in  essential 
attitude  and  spirit.  But  the  day  of  that  confusion  is 
rapidly  closing.  The  one  confusion  which  does  today 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS  NOT     15 

threaten  our  understanding  of  the  function  of  the  college 
is  that  which  identifies  it  with  the  professional  school, 
which  declares  that  there  is  no  genuine  education  which 
is  not  really  professional,  which  characterizes  the  belief 
in  a  "liberal  education,"  separate  from  and  independent 
of  vocational  and  professional  study,  as  an  idle  creation 
of  dream  and  fancy.  In  these  pragmatic  days  such  a 
confusion  as  this  is  likely  to  spread  far  and  wide.  It  is 
not  the  only  instance  of  pragmatic  thinking  which  just 
now  threatens  the  clarity  of  our  educational  policy,  but  it 
is  an  especially  dangerous  one  because  it  strikes  at  the 
very  roots  of  all  our  liberal  teaching.  Amid  these  days 
of  celebration  and  study  of  the  American  liberal  college, 
I  should  like  to  smite  as  hard  as  I  can  hit  at  this  heresy 
which  denies  the  very  belief  on  which  that  college  is  built. 


The  heresy  is  hard  to  meet  just  now  because  in  a  sense 
it  catches  us  off  our  balance.  Under  the  influence  of  the 
university  ideal  the  colleges  had  been  saying  to  their  stu- 
dents, "Study  anything  you  like;  all  knowledge  is  good; 
in  fact,  all  knowledge  is  equally  good;  make  your  choice, 
follow  your  bent;  if  only  you  keep  going  in  any  direction 
a  liberal  education  is  assured."  But  as  against  this,  we 
are  seeing  more  and  more  clearly  every  day  that  the  con- 
tent of  a  liberal  education  is  not  thus  indefinite  and  in- 
determinate, that  there  is  an  intellectual  culture  which  one 
must  master  if  he  is  to  travel  the  way  of  liberal  education. 
And  in  our  enthusiasm  we  have  been  crying:  "Back  to 
the  good  old  college  of  earlier  days,  away  with  the  extrava- 
gances of  election  and  specialization,  let  us  return  again 
to  the  fathers,  to  the  requirements  which  they  established, 
to  the  college  which  they  founded."  And  here  it  is  that 
the  subtle  and  dangerous  heresy  finds  its  opportunity. 
"Do  you  wish  definite  and  coherent  requirements?"  it 
asks.  "Very  well,  you  will  find  them  in  the  professional 


16  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

school."  And  if  we  protest  that  these  are  not  the  require- 
ments that  we  had  in  mind,  that  they  are  not  liberal  but 
technical,  then  there  descends  upon  us  a  crushing  and 
bewildering  argument.  "You  wish  to  return  to  the  spirit 
and  practice  of  the  old  colonial  college,"  it  says;  "very 
well,  do  so,  but  first  recognize  that  the  college  which  you 
imitate  was  itself  a  professional  school.  The  colonial 
forefathers  were  not  wasting  idle  dreams  on  this  airy  nothing 
which  you  call  'liberal  training.'  They  needed  ministers 
for  their  churches  and  so  they  founded  colleges  to  train 
those  ministers.  The  colleges  which  they  established  were 
in  essential  purpose  schools  of  divinity,  schools  to  train 
young  men  for  the  profession  of  the  ministry.  They 
were  devised  for  a  special  purpose  and  the  forefathers  were 
shrewd  enough  to  see  to  it  that  that  purpose  was  realized." 
And  from  this  assertion  as  its  premise,  the  argument  pro- 
ceeds to  its  conclusion. 

"The  old  college  was  professional  in  spirit;  then  so  too 
should  they  be  who  imitate  it  in  spirit.  But  the  old  college 
intended  to  train  for  only  one  of  the  professions.  To  that 
end  all  its  courses  of  study,  all  its  methods  of  teaching, 
were  adapted.  It  will  never  do  to  give  the  same  courses 
of  study,  the  same  teaching,  to  the  boys  who  are  planning 
for  other  professions.  Loyalty  to  the  old  college  demands 
that  for  each  profession  its  own  special  system  of  prepa- 
ration be  devised;  we  in  our  day  must  do  for  lawyers, 
engineers,  physicians,  architects,  for  each  of  these  what  the 
fathers  in  their  day  did  for  the  students  of  divinity."  So 
by  the  argument  the  college  becomes  simply  a  collection 
of  professional  schools;  liberal  education  as  a  thing  apart 
has  disappeared.  And  we  arrive  at  a  new  definition  of  the 
American  liberal  college,  —  it  is  an  institution  which  some 
people  had  mistakenly  believed  to  exist. 

In  considering  the  effect  of  such  an  argument  as  this  it 
is  necessary  to  take  into  account  the  secondary  result  as 
well  as  the  primary.  The  first  effect,  as  in  the  case  of  all 
honest  conflicts  with  convincing  arguments,  is  that  you 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS  NOT      17 

find  yourself  knocked  down.  The  second  stage  of  the 
experience,  however,  reveals  two  facts:  (i)  that  you  can 
get  up  again  and  (2)  that  you  are  not  hurt,  indeed  that  you 
are  rather  exhilarated  by  what  has  happened.  This  sec- 
ondary stage  is  proof  positive  that  you  have  not  been  hit 
by  anything  solid.  At  this  time,  it  is  in  order  to  inquire 
what  it  was  which,  at  the  moment  of  impact,  gave  such  an 
impression  of  solidity. 

The  most  interesting  feature  of  the  argument  is  that  the 
premise  on  which  it  depends  is  not  true.  The  premise 
asserts  that,  in  the  sense  in  which  we  now  use  the  term, 
the  colonial  college  was  a  professional  school.  But  it  was 
not,  nor  was  it  intended  to  be.  The  supposed  evidence 
for  the  assertion  is  simply  a  confusion  as  to  the  meaning  of 
another  statement  which  is  true.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
one  of  the  primary  motives  of  the  founders  of  the  early 
colleges  was  to  provide  for  the  education  of  the  clergy. 
But  the  assertion  under  discussion  is  not  identical  with  this, 
nor  does  it  follow  from  it.  And  apart  from  questions  of 
inference,  the  plain  facts  of  record  concerning  the  purpose 
of  the  founders  forbid  the  suggested  interpretation  of  their 
intention.  He  who  would  hold  to  this  interpretation  must 
maintain  two  assertions  concerning  our  colonial  forefathers: 
(i)  that  they  did  not  mean  what  they  said,  and  (2)  that 
they  did  not  get  what  they  paid  for.  My  impression  is 
that  the  antecedent  probability  is  in  both  cases  strongly 
against  the  maker  of  the  statements. 

With  regard  to  the  purpose  which  the  colleges  were 
intended  to  further,  there  are  clear  expressions  in  the 
charters  under  which  they  were  established.  The  assertion 
under  discussion  is  that  these  colleges  were  established  to 
give  professional  training  to  ministerial  students.  The 
charter  of  Harvard  College,  granted  in  1650,  defines  the 
aim  as  "for  the  advancement  of  all  good  literature,  arts, 
and  sciences."  The  new  articles  of  1780,  reviewing  the 
achievements  of  the  college,  say  "in  which  University 
many  persons  of  great  eminence  have,  by  the  blessing  of 


i8  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

God,  been  initiated  in  those  arts  and  sciences  which  qualified 
them  for  public  employments  both  in  Church  and  State." 

The  charter  of  Yale  University,  the  Collegiate  School  of 
Connecticut,  describes  it  as  a  school  "wherein  youth  may 
be  instructed  in  the  arts  and  sciences,  who  through  the 
blessing  of  Almighty  God  may  be  fitted  for  Public  employ- 
ment both  in  Church  and  Civil  State."  The  charter  of  the 
Academy  and  Charitable  School  in  the  Province  of  Penn- 
sylvania approves  the  project,  "hoping  that  this  academy 
may  prove  a  nursery  of  wisdom  and  virtue,  and  that  it 
will  produce  men  of  dispositions  and  capacities  beneficial 
to  mankind  in  the  various  occupations  of  life"  The  charter 
of  Kings  College  in  New  York  provides  for  the  instruction 
and  education  of  youth  in  the  learned  languages  and  in 
the  liberal  arts  and  sciences.  The  announcement  reads  in 
part  as  follows: 

"A  serious,  virtuous,  and  industrious  Course  of  Life 
being  first  provided  for,  it  is  further  the  Design  of  this 
College,  to  instruct  and  perfect  the  Youth  in  the  Learned 
Languages,  and  in  the  Arts  of  Reasoning  exactly,  of  Writing 
correctly  and  Speaking  eloquently;  And  in  the  Arts  of 
Numbering  and  Measuring,  of  Surveying  and  Navigation, 
of  Geography  and  History,  of  Husbandry,  Commerce,  and 
Government;  and  in  the  Knowledge  of  all  Nature  in  the 
Heavens  above  us,  and  in  the  Air,  Water,  and  Earth  around 
us,  and  the  various  Kinds  of  Meteors,  Stones,  Mines,  and 
Minerals,  Plants  and  Animals,  and  of  every  Thing  useful 
for  the  Comfort,  the  Convenience,  the  Elegance  of  Life, 
in  the  chief  Manufactures  relating  to  any  of  these  things; 
And  finally,  to  lead  them  from  the  Study  of  Nature,  to  the 
Knowledge  of  themselves,  and  of  the  God  of  Nature,  and 
their  Duty  to  Him,  themselves,  and  one  another;  and  every 
Thing  that  can  contribute  to  their  true  Happiness,  both 
here  and  hereafter." 

Surely  this  is  a  strange  course  of  study  for  a  divinity  school 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS  NOT       19 

One  of  the  most  illuminating  cases  is  that  of  Brown 
University.  The  expressed  intention  of  the  founders  of 
Brown  University  was  "to  establish  a  seminary  of  polite 
literature  subject  to  the  Government  of  the  Baptists," 
and  beyond  question  they  were  planning  for  the  education 
of  their  own  candidates  for  the  ministry.  But  does  this 
mean  that  they  planned  to  give  professional  theological 
training  in  the  college?  If  so,  why  is  it  specified  that 
youth  of  all  religious  denominations  shall  be  accepted? 
Was  it  intended  that  Congregationalists  and  Episcopalians 
should  become  Baptist  ministers?  And  why  is  it  so  defi- 
nitely stated  that  "the  Sectarian  differences  of  opinions 
shall  not  make  any  Part  of  the  Public  and  Classical  In- 
struction?" Is  it  customary  in  a  divinity  school  to  forbid 
the  discussion  of  the  tenets  of  the  sect  by  which  the  school 
is  established?  There  was  no  such  restriction  when  the 
first  divinity  school  was  established  at  Andover  in  1807, 
for  then  the  project  was  delayed  until  the  founders  could 
agree  what  creed  should  be  taught,  and  until  it  had  been 
voted  that  each  professor  should  assent  to  the  creed  which 
the  Hopkinsians  had  prepared.  Is  there  not  a  different 
motive  here  from  that  expressed  in  the  charter  of  Brown 
which  says,  "Into  this  Liberal  and  Catholic  Institution 
shall  never  be  admitted  any  Religious  Tests  but  on  the 
Contrary  all  the  Members  hereof  shall  for  ever  enjoy  full 
free  Absolute  and  uninterrupted  Liberty  of  Conscience"? 
In  1770  the  trustees  of  the  new  college  in  Rhode  Island 
voted  "that  the  children  of  Jews  may  be  admitted  to  the 
institution  and  intirely  enjoy  the  freedom  of  their  own 
religion  without  any  constraint  or  imposition  whatever." 
Was  it  in  order  that  they  might  be  prepared  for  the  priest- 
hood of  their  own  church,  or  was  it  in  the  hope  that  the  free 
and  unhampered  dialectic  of  their  own  Jewish  faith  might 
bring  them  eventually  into  the  Baptist  pulpit? 

I  have  given  only  a  few  quotations  from  the  charters 
and  early  statutes,  but  on  these  we  may  safely  rest  the  case 
as  to  the  purpose  of  the  founders  of  the  colonial  colleges. 


20  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

Some  people  are  saying  to-day  that  the  intention  was  to 
give  technical  training  for  the  ministry.  The  charters  say 
that  the  colleges  were  established  to  give  teaching  in  liter- 
ature, the  arts,  and  sciences,  with  the  expectation  that  this 
teaching  would  be  of  value  both  in  church  and  state,  in  all 
the  various  occupations  into  which  young  men  might  go. 
For  my  own  part,  the  evidence  of  the  charters  is  the  more 
convincing.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  colonial  fore- 
fathers knew  what  they  meant  and  meant  what  they  said. 
But  now  for  the  test  of  the  work  done.  Whatever  they 
said,  did  the  colleges  actually  train  men  for  the  ministry 
in  the  sense  in  which  professional  schools  are  now  preparing 
them  for  separate  occupations?  In  his  book  on  Educational 
Reform,  President  Eliot  records  that  in  the  ten  years  from 
1761  to  1770  the  percentage  of  ministers  among  the  gradu- 
ates of  Harvard  College  was  twenty-nine,  among  those  of 
Yale  thirty-two,  and  among  those  of  Princeton  forty-five. 
In  the  first  thirty-nine  classes  graduated  from  Brown  only 
twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  members  enterejd  the  ministry. 
Now  what  shall  we  say  of  the  seventy-one  per  cent  at 
Harvard,  the  sixty-eight  per  cent  at  Yale,  the  fifty-five 
per  cent  at  Princeton,  and  the  seventy-five  per  cent  at 
Brown?  These  men  were  planning  to  practice  law,  medi- 
cine, teaching,  business.  Why  did  they  go  to  a  divinity 
school?  Did  they  think  that  a  man  who  is  ready  for  the 
ministry  is  ready  for  anything?  The  statement  is  perhaps 
true,  but  hardly  relevant.  I  venture  to  suggest  that  their 
real  opinion  was  that  expressed  in  the  charters  we  have 
quoted,  viz.:  that  the  education  which  the  college  gave 
was  regarded  as  of  value  to  a  man  whatever  the  profession 
into  which  he  might  go.  If  it  be  urged  that  there  were 
no  other  schools  to  which  they  could  go,  I  should  reply 
that  in  that  case,  if  they  had  wanted  something  else,  they 
would  have  made  protest  long  and  loud,  and  would  have 
demanded  changes  in  the  old  colleges  or  the  establishment 
of  new  ones.  But  a  record  of  the  attitude  of  the  lay  gradu- 
ates of  our  colleges  is  not  one  of  fault-finding  and  protest. 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS  NO?     21 

Rather  have  they  shown  unswerving  loyalty  and  gratitude, 
and  because  of  their  faith  in  the  college  and  its  teaching, 
they  have  poured  out  the  wealth  which  has  enlarged  the 
college  to  proportions  of  which  its  founders  never  dreamed. 
Benefactors  and  graduates  alike  have  believed  in  non- 
professional  education,  and  have  believed  they  were 
receiving  it.  He  who  says  that  they  have  paid  for  pro- 
fessional education  says  that  they  have  paid  for  what 
they  thought  they  were  not  getting.  Knowing  them  as 
I  do,  I  find  the  statement  hard  to  accept. 

The  point  just  made  presents  itself  in  another  form  when 
viewed  in  relation  to  present  conditions.  To  the  old  col- 
lege there  went  students  planning  to  enter  all  the  pro- 
fessions, and  they  found  there  the  education  which  they 
sought.  Of  what  professional  school  is  it  true  to-day  that 
candidates  for  the  other  professions  go  to  it  for  training? 
Are  there  many  law  students  in  the  medical  schools,  many 
engineering  students  in  the  divinity  schools,  many  archi- 
tects in  the  schools  of  music  ?  Would  it  not  be  a  new  type 
of  engineering  school  which  should  attract  forty-five, 
fifty-five,  seventy,  or  seventy-five  per  cent  of  students 
going  into  other  professions?  I  think  that  if  we  found  an 
engineering  school  of  that  type  we  should  begin  to  give  it 
another  name,  should  recognize  it  as  having  a  different 
function  from  the  one  we  had  assigned  it,  should  take 
away  from  it  the  name  "professional"  and  call  it  "liberal," 
a  school  in  which  are  to  be  found  studies  and  teaching  of 
value  to  a  man  whatever  his  profession  may  be.  To  call 
such  a  school  technical  or  professional  is  simply  to  twist 
terms  out  of  all  resemblance  to  their  ordinary  meanings. 
It  indicates  a  confusion  of  thought  which  demands  more 
careful  analysis  of  the  argument  than  we  have  yet  given. 
It  will  be  worth  while  to  examine  it  more  closely. 

The  argument  as  it  stands  is  one  of  the  most  common 
types  of  fallacy.  It  says,  "The  colonial  college  prepared 
men  for  the  ministry;  hence  it  did  nothing  else."  It  is  the 
argument  "A  is  B,  hence  A  is  only  5;"  or  again,  it  is,  "If  an 


22 

object  have  a  given  quality,  then  it  has  no  other  quality." 
"Charles  Darwin  was  an  Englishman,  hence  of  course  he 
was  not  a  biologist."  "Spinoza  was  a  grinder  of  lenses, 
hence  he  cannot  have  been  a  philosopher."  But  Darwin 
was  a  biologist  in  spite  of  the  argument;  and  Spinoza  did 
dominate  the  thought  of  Europe,  even  while  grinding 
lenses  in  his  garret.  The  trouble  with  the  argument  is 
that  the  conclusion  does  not  follow;  there  is  no  logical 
connection  between  conclusion  and  premise.  A  may  be  B 
and  yet  be  also  C  and  D  as  well.  A  college  may  be  a  good 
place  for  a  young  man  who  plans  to  enter  the  ministry  and 
may  yet  have  qualities  and  purposes  of  which  that  state- 
ment is  in  no  sense  an  adequate  description.  It  may  well 
be  that  its  value  for  ministerial  students  is  only  one  phase  of 
its  total  and  fundamental  function.  That  this  is  true  is 
already  apparent  from  its  appeal  to  students  of  other 
professions.  If  we  can  now  define  this  total  appeal,  the 
confusion  should  disappear  and  the  modicum  of  truth 
which  the  argument  contains  should  separate  itself  out 
from  the  vast  error  in  which  that  truth  has  been  involved. 

The  real  motive  of  the  founders  of  the  early  colleges,  so 
far  as  it  concerned  students  for  the  ministry,  appears  in 
the  account  given  by  Walter  Cochrane  Bronson  in  his 
History  of  Brown  University.  The  Baptists,  he  tells  us, 
were  eager  to  have  a  college  under  their  own  control,  to 
which  their  ministerial  students  might  go.  But  why? 
Was  it  because  they  were  not  sufficiently  supplied  with 
ministers,  or  that  the  candidates  were  unable  to  secure 
the  technical  training  needed  for  their  profession?  Not 
at  all.  The  reason,  he  tells  us,  was  that  at  the  time  Brown 
was  established  "there  were  only  two  Baptist  ministers  in 
all  New  England  who  had  what  is  called  a  liberal  education; 
and  they  were  not  clear  in  the  doctrines  of  grace."  Now 
in  accordance  with  the  custom  of  the  time,  the  leaders  of 
the  denomination  could  easily  provide  for  the  professional 
training  of  their  boys  by  placing  them  in  the  charge  of  older 
men  who  regularly  gave  such  instruction  to  their  appren- 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS  NOT     23 

tices.  But  they  recognized  that  the  denomination  could 
not  hold  its  own,  could  not  achieve  its  purpose  in  the  com- 
munity unless  its  ministers  were  men  of  power  and  intelli- 
gence, men  who  could  lead  and  dominate  the  men  about 
them.  And  so  the  Baptist  Church  provided  for  the  edu- 
cation of  its  young  men  who  were  candidates  for  the 
ministry.  Did  it  provide  for  their  technical  theological  in- 
struction? The  charter  of  the  college  specifically  denies  this. 
The  purpose  was  to  educate  ministers,  —  but  in  what  sense? 
Our  opponents  have  interpreted  the  purpose  as  that  of 
educating  men  to  be  ministers.  The  real  purpose  was  that 
of  educating  ministers  to  be  men.  And  at  the  same  time 
by  the  same  methods  colleges  were  educating  lawyers  to  be 
men,  and  teachers,  physicians,  and  business  men  to  be 
men.  The  same  argument  which  proves  the  old  college 
to  have  been  a  divinity  school  would  prove  it  to  be  a  law 
school,  a  medical  school,  a  school  of  pedagogy,  a  business 
school.  But  the  argument  proves  too  much.  There  is  a 
limit  to  the  number  of  different  things  a  single  thing  can 
be.  The  old  college  did  educate  ministers  just  as  it  edu- 
cated candidates  for  other  professions,  but  it  did  not  give 
to  each  of  these  groups  a  different  education.  It  was 
dealing  with  something  common  to  them  all,  and  so  it  gave 
to  them  all  the  same  instruction,  —  the  culture  of  a  liberal 
education. 

ii 

I  think  it  is  clear  that  the  issue  we  are  discussing  rests 
upon  the  interpretation  of  a  phrase  —  "founded  for  the 
education  of  ministers."  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  phrase 
expresses  in  large  measure  the  purpose  of  the  early  colleges. 
But  what  does  it  mean?  It  is  amazing  to  see  how,  in  the 
face  of  definite  records  to  the  contrary,  this  statement  has 
been  taken  to  mean  that  the  colleges  were  schools  of  divin- 
ity. But  the  phrase  admits  of  another  interpretation  which 
has  the  advantage  of  agreeing  with  the  records.  What  does 
it  mean  to  teach  a  minister?  Does  it  mean  only  to  teach 


24  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

him  to  be  a  minister?  He  has  many  other  things  to  learn 
besides  that.  He  is  taught  by  his  wife,  taught  by  his 
children,  by  his  friends,  and  by  his  enemies.  But  the 
caddie  who  teaches  him  to  play  golf  does  not  thereby  be- 
come a  member  of  a  faculty  of  divinity;  he  may  even  not 
be  a  professor  of  religion.  A  school  for  the  deaf  does  not 
necessarily  teach  deafness,  nor  does  a  school  for  foreigners 
usually  teach  them  to  be  foreign.  A  school  for  anybody 
may  undertake  to  teach  him  what  he  needs  to  know.  Our 
colonial  forefathers  were  persuaded  that  ministers  as  well 
as  other  men  need  knowledge  of  things  outside  their  pro- 
fession, need  knowledge  of  the  arts  and  sciences,  and  it  was 
that  belief  which  found  expression  in  the  colleges  which 
they  established. 

The  argument  which  we  have  been  attacking  has  told  us 
to  follow  the  example  of  the  colonial  college.  If  I  under- 
stand at  all  the  purpose  of  the  modern  liberal  college  that 
is  just  what  it  is  doing.  There  is  a  vast  difference  in  in- 
tellectual content  as  between  the  old  college  and  the  new, 
but  the  two  institutions  are  at  one  in  the  belief  in  the  value 
of  knowledge  as  the  guide  of  human  life,  and  in  the  con- 
viction that  certain  elements  of  knowledge  are  of  common 
value  to  all  men  whatever  their  differences  of  occupation 
or  trade. 

I  should  like  to  have  the  privilege  of  attempting  one  last 
restatement  of  this  conviction  in  positive  terms  before 
this  paper  is  closed. 

in 

In  the  old  colonial  community,  the  clergyman,  as  in 
lesser  degree  the  lawyer  and  the  teacher,  was  the  man  of 
ideas.  He  was  no  mere  teacher  of  the  gospel  and  tender 
of  the  parish.  While  his  people  lived  their  lives  it  was 
his  task  to  reflect  upon  their  living,  to  formulate  the  be- 
liefs on  which  it  was  based,  to  study  the  conditions  by  which 
it  was  molded,  to  bring  to  clearness  the  problems  by  which 
it  was  faced,  to  study  the  moral,  social,  economic,  political 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS  NOT     25 

situations  of  which  it  was  constituted.  It  was  his  part 
and  the  part  of  men  of  like  intellectual  development  to 
attempt  to  understand  the  lives  which  other  men  were 
living  with  lesser  degrees  of  understanding.  It  was  his 
task  to  serve  as  prophet  and  seer,  as  guide  and  counselor 
of  his  people. 

It  was  for  this  task  that  the  liberal  college  intended  to 
prepare  him.  And  in  these  latter  days,  as  the  scope  of 
education  has  been  extended  more  and  more  broadly, 
the  same  liberal  education  has  been  given  to  great  numbers 
of  our  young  men,  whatever  the  professions  they  are  plan- 
ning to  enter.  At  the  present  time  a  very  small  percentage 
of  our  college  graduates  become  ministers;  more  than  half 
of  them  enter  into  some  form  of  business  occupation.  But 
whether  they  are  to  be  in  business  or  in  the  ministry,  the 
same  education  must  be  given  them,  since  the  new  com- 
munity has  the  same  need  as  had  the  old  of  understanding 
itself,  of  stating  itself  in  terms  of  ideas. 

This  fundamental  belief  of  liberal  education  can  be 
stated  in  terms  of  two  principles.  The  first  is  shared  by 
both  liberal  and  technical  teaching.  The  second  applies 
to  liberal  education  alone.  The  principles  are  these: 
(i)  that  activity  guided  by  ideas  is  on  the  whole  more 
successful  than  the  same  activity  without  the  control  of 
ideas,  and  (2)  that  in  the  activities  common  to  all  men  the 
guidance  by  ideas  is  quite  as  essential  as  in  the  case  of  those 
which  different  groups  of  men  carry  on  in  differentiation 
from  one  another. 

The  first  principle  applies  to  all  higher  education.  We 
recognize  that  human  deeds  may  be  done  in  either  of  two 
ways,  —  first,  by  habit,  by  custom,  by  tradition,  by  rule 
of  thumb,  just  as  they  always  have  been  done;  or,  on  the 
other  hand,  under  the  guidance  of  study,  of  investigation, 
of  ideas  and  principles  by  which  men  attempt  to  discover 
and  to  formulate  knowledge  as  to  how  these  activities  can 
best  be  done.  Now  all  higher  education,  liberal  or  pro- 
fessional, rests  on  the  belief  that  on  the  whole  an  activity 


26  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

which  is  understood  will  be  more  successful  than  one  which 
is  not  understood.  Knowledge  pays;  intelligence  is  power. 
The  liberal  school  and  the  professional  are,  however, 
separated  by  their  choice  of  the  activities  which  each  shall 
study.  Every  professional  school  selects  some  one  special 
group  of  activities  carried  on  by  the  members  of  one  special 
trade  or  occupation  and  brings  to  the  furtherance  of  these 
the  full  light  of  intellectual  understanding  and  guidance. 
The  liberal  school,  on  the  other  hand,  takes  as  its  content 
those  activities  which  all  men  carry  on,  those  deeds  which 
a  man  must  do  in  virtue  of  the  fact  that  he  is  a  man;  and 
within  this  field  it  seeks  to  achieve  the  same  enlightenment 
and  insight.  The  liberal  college  would  learn  and  teach 
what  can  be  known  about  a  man's  moral  experience,  our 
common  speech,  our  social  relations,  our  political  insti- 
tutions, our  religious  aspirations  and  beliefs,  the  world  of 
nature  which  surrounds  and  molds  us,  our  intellectual  and 
aesthetic  strivings  and  yearnings  —  all  these,  the  human 
things  that  all  men  share,  the  liberal  school  attempts  to 
understand,  believing  that  if  they  are  understood,  men  can 
live  them  better  than  they  would  live  them  by  mere  tra- 
dition and  blind  custom.  But  one  of  the  terrible  things 
about  our  generation  is  that  the  principle  which  it  accepts 
so  eagerly  in  the  field  of  the  vocation  it  refuses  and  shuns 
in  the  deeper  things  of  human  living.  I  have  known  fathers, 
planning  for  the  training  of  a  son,  who  would  see  to  it  that 
in  the'  preparation  for  his  trade  every  bit  of  knowledge  he 
can  have  is  supplied  him.  If  the  boy  is  to  be  a  dyer  of 
cloth,  then  he  must  study  the  sciences  that  understand 
that  process.  All  that  can  be  known  about  the  nature  of 
fabrics,  the  constitution  of  dyestufFs,  the  processes  of 
application  and  development  of  the  dye  —  not  one  bit  of 
all  this  may  be  lacking  from  the  teaching  of  the  boy.  To 
put  him  into  the  shop  without  that  knowledge,  to  let  him 
learn  by  imitation,  pick  up  the  rule  of  thumb,  follow  the 
ways  of  master  workmen  of  the  trade  —  to  do  that  would 
be  to  make  him  only  a  workman,  one  who  can  do  what 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE  IS  NOT     27 

has  been  done,  can  do  what  he  is  told  to  do.  But  the 
father  is  not  content  with  this.  His  boy  must  understand 
and  know  the  trade  so  that  he  may  be  the  leader  and  the 
guide,  may  give  the  orders  rather  than  obey  them.  But 
how  often  the  same  father  is  unwilling  that  his  boy  attempt 
to  understand  his  own  religion,  his  own  morals,  his  own 
society,  his  own  politics!  In  these  fields,  surely  the  father's 
opinions  are  good  enough!  Keep  the  boy's  mind  at  rest 
regarding  his  religion  and  his  economics;  what  has  been 
believed  before  had  better  still  be  believed!  It  may  be 
bad  for  business,  may  interfere  with  a  boy's  success  if  he 
becomes  too  much  interested  in  the  fundamental  things  of 
life!  And  so  such  parents  invite  us  to  leave  the  universal 
things,  the  things  most  sacred  and  significant,  to  blindness, 
to  the  mere  drift  of  custom,  to  tradition,  and  rule  of  thumb. 
And  here  it  is  that  the  liberal  college  again  asserts  its  loyalty 
to  the  men  who  founded  the  older  institutions.  Those  men 
had  intellectual  faith;  they  believed  that  it  is  worth  while 
to  know  the  life  of  man,  and  so  they  studied  it  and  taught 
it  to  their  pupils.  I  know  that  I  speak  for  the  teachers 
and  the  administrators  of  the  liberal  college  here  represented 
to-day  when  I  pledge  anew  our  loyalty  to  the  men  in  whose 
footsteps  we  follow.  So  far  as  we  can  bring  it  about,  the 
young  people  of  our  generation  shall  know  themselves,  shall 
know  their  fellows,  shall  think  their  way  into  the  common 
life  of  their  people,  and  by  their  thought  shall  illumine 
and  direct  it.  If  we  are  not  pledged  to  that,  then  we  have 
deserted  the  old  standard;  we  are  apostates  from  the 
faith.  But  I  think  that  a  good  many  of  us  are  still  loyal. 
We  welcome  every  new  extension  of  vocational  instruction. 
We  know  that  every  man  should  have  some  special  task 
to  do  and  should  be  trained  to  do  that  task  as  well  as  it 
can  possibly  be  done.  The  more  the  special  trades  and 
occupations  are  guided  and  directed  by  skill  and  knowledge 
the  more  will  human  life  succeed  in  doing  the  things  it 
plans  to  do.  But  by  the  same  principle  we  pledge  ourselves 
to  the  study  of  the  universal  things  in  human  life,  the 


28  THE   LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

things  that  make  us  men  as  well  as  ministers  and  tradesmen. 
We  pledge  ourselves  forever  to  the  study  of  human  living 
in  order  that  living  may  be  better  done.  We  have  not 
yet  forgotten  that  fundamentally  the  proper  study  of  man- 
kind is  Man. 


II 

WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS 

IN  the  discussions  concerning  college  education  there  is 
one  voice  which  is  all  too  seldom  raised  and  all  too  often 
disregarded.  It  is  the  voice  of  the  teacher  and  the  scholar, 
of  the  member  of  the  college  faculty.  It  is  my  purpose 
to  devote  this  address  to  a  consideration  of  the  ideals  of 
the  teacher,  of  the  problems  of  instruction  as  they  present 
themselves  to  the  men  who  are  giving  the  instruction. 
And  I  do  this  not  because  I  believe  that  just  now  the  teachers 
are  wiser  than  others  who  are  dealing  with  the  same  ques- 
tions, but  rather  as  an  expression  of  a  definite  conviction 
with  regard  to  the  place  of  the  teacher  in  our  educational 
scheme.  It  is,  I  believe,  the  function  of  the  teacher  to 
stand  before  his  pupils  and  before  the  community  at  large 
as  the  intellectual  leader  of  his  time.  If  he  is  not  able  to 
take  this  leadership,  he  is  not  worthy  of  his  calling.  If  the 
leadership  is  taken  from  him  and  given  to  others,  then  the 
very  foundations  of  the  scheme  of  instruction  are  shaken. 
He  who  in  matters  of  teaching  must  be  led  by  others  is  not 
the  one  to  lead  the  imitative  undergraduate,  not  the  one 
to  inspire  the  confidence  and  loyalty  and  discipleship  on 
which  all  true  teaching  depends.  If  there  are  others  who 
can  do  these  things  better  than  the  college  teacher  of  to- 
day, then  we  must  bring  them  within  the  college  walls. 
But  if  the  teacher  is  to  be  deemed  worthy  of  his  task,  then 
he  must  be  recognized  as  the  teacher  of  us  all,  and  we  must 
listen  to  his  words  as  he  speaks  of  the  matters  entrusted 
to  his  charge. 

In   the   consideration   of  the   educational   creed   of  the 
teacher  I  will  try  to  give,  first,  a  brief  statement  of  his 

29 


3o  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

belief;  second,  a  defense  of  it  against  other  views  of  the 
function  of  the  college;  third,  an  interpretation  of  its 
meaning  and  significance;  fourth,  a  criticism  of  what  seem 
to  me  misunderstandings  of  their  own  meaning  prevalent 
among  the  teachers  of  our  day;  and  finally,  a  suggestion 
of  certain  changes  in  policy  which  must  follow  if  the  belief 
of  the  teacher  is  clearly  understood  and  applied  in  our 
educational  procedure. 


First,  then,  What  do  our  teachers  believe  to  be  the  aim 
of  college  instruction?  Wherever  their  opinions  and  con- 
victions find  expression  there  is  one  contention  which  is 
always  in  the  foreground,  namely,  that  to  be  liberal  a  college 
must  be  essentially  intellectual.  It  is  a  place,  the  teachers 
tell  us,  in  which  a  boy,  forgetting  all  things  else,  may  set 
forth  on  the  enterprise  of  learning.  It  is  a  time  when  a 
young  man  may  come  to  awareness  of  the  thinking  of  his 
people,  may  perceive  what  knowledge  is  and  has  been  and 
is  to  be.  Whatever  light-hearted  undergraduates  may  say, 
whatever  the  opinions  of  solicitous  parents,  of  ambitious 
friends,  of  employers  in  search  of  workmen,  of  leaders  in 
church  or  state  or  business,  —  whatever  may  be  the  beliefs 
and  desires  and  demands  of  outsiders,  —  the  teacher 
within  the  college,  knowing  his  mission  as  no  one  else  can 
know  it,  proclaims  that  mission  to  be  the  leading  of  his 
pupil  into  the  life  intellectual.  The  college  is  primarily 
not  a  place  of  the  body,  nor  of  the  feelings,  nor  even  of  the 
will;  it  is,  first  of  all,  a  place  of  the  mind. 

II 

Against  this  intellectual  interpretation  of  the  college 
our  teachers  find  two  sets  of  hostile  forces  constantly  at 
work.  Outside  the  walls  there  are  the  practical  demands 
of  a  busy  commercial  and  social  scheme;  within  the  college 
there  are  the  trivial  and  sentimental  and  irrational  mis- 
understandings of  its  own  friends.  Upon  each  of  these 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS          31 

our  college  teachers  are  wont  to  descend  as  Samson  upon 
the  Philistines,  and  when  they  have  had  their  will,  there 
is  little  left  for  another  to  accomplish.  . 

As  against  the  immediate  practical  demands  from  with- 
out, the  issue  is  clear  and  decisive.  College  teachers  know 
that  the  world  must  have  trained  workmen,  skilled  oper- 
atives, clever  buyers  and  sellers,  efficient  directors,  re- 
sourceful manufacturers,  able  lawyers,  ministers,  physicians 
and  teachers.  But  it  is  equally  true  that  in  order  to  do 
its  own  work,  the  liberal  college  must  leave  the  special  and 
technical  training  for  these  trades  and  professions  to  be 
done  in  other  schools  and  by  other  methods.  In  a  word, 
the  liberal  college  does  not  pretend  to  give  all  the  kinds  of 
teaching  which  a  young  man  of  college  age  may  profitably 
receive;  it  does  not  even  claim  to  give  all  the  kinds  of  in- 
tellectual training  which  are  worth  giving.  It  is  com- 
mitted to  intellectual  training  of  the  liberal  type,  whatever 
that  may  mean,  and  to  that  mission  it  must  be  faithful. 
One  may  safely  say,  then,  on  behalf  of  our  college  teachers, 
that  their  instruction  is  intended  to  be  radically  different 
from  that  given  in  the  technical  school  or  even  in  the  pro- 
fessional school.  Both  these  institutions  are  practical  in 
a  sense  in  which  the  college,  as  an  intellectual  institution,  is 
not.  In  the  technical  school  the  pupil  is  taught  how  to  do 
some  one  of  the  mechanical  operations  which  contribute 
to  human  welfare.  He  is  trained  to  print,  to  weave,  to 
farm,  to  build;  and  for  the  most  part  he  is  trained  to  do 
these  things  by  practice  rather  than  by  theory.  His  pos- 
session when  he  leaves  the  school  is  not  a  stock  of  ideas, 
of  scientific  principles,  but  a  measure  of  skill,  a  collection 
of  rules  of  thumb.  His  primary  function  as  a  tradesman 
is  not  to  understand  but  to  do,  and  in  doing  what  is  needed 
he  is  following  directions  which  have  first  been  thought  out 
by  others  and  are  now  practised  by  him.  The  technical 
school  intends  to  furnish  training  which,  in  the  sense  in 
which  we  use  the  term,  is  not  intellectual  but  practical. 
In  a  corresponding  way  the  work  of  the  professional 


3  2  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

school  differs  from  that  of  the  liberal  college.  In  the 
teaching  of  engineering,  medicine,  or  law  we  are  or  may  be 
beyond  the  realm  of  mere  skill  and  within  the  realm  of 
ideas  and  principles.  But  the  selection  and  the  relating 
of  these  ideas  is  dominated  by  an  immediate  practical 
interest  which  cuts  them  off  from  the  intellectual  point 
of  view  of  the  scholar.  If  an  undergraduate  should  take 
away  from  his  studies  of  chemistry,  biology  and  psychology 
only  those  parts  which  have  immediate  practical  appli- 
cation in  the  field  of  medicine,  the  college  teachers  would 
feel  that  they  had  failed  to  give  to  the  boy  the  kind  of 
instruction  demanded  of  a  college.  It  is  not  their  purpose 
to  furnish  applied  knowledge  in  this  sense.  They  are  not 
willing  to  cut  up  their  sciences  into  segments  and  to  allow 
the  student  to  select  those  segments  which  may  be  of 
service  in  the  practice  of  an  art  or  of  a  profession.  In  one 
way  or  another  the  teacher  feels  a  kinship  with  the  scientist 
and  the  scholar  which  forbids  him  to  submit  to  this  domi- 
nation of  his  instruction  by  the  demands  of  an  immediate 
practical  interest.  Whatever  it  may  mean,  he  intends  to 
hold  the  intellectual  point  of  view  and  to  keep  his  students 
with  him  if  he  can.  In  response,  then,  to  demands  for 
technical  and  professional  training  our  college  teachers 
tell  us  that  such  training  may  be  obtained  in  other  schools; 
it  is  not  to  be  had  in  a  college  of  liberal  culture. 

In  the  conflict  with  the  forces  within  the  college  our 
teachers  find  themselves  fighting  essentially  the  same  battle 
as  against  the  foes  without.  In  a  hundred  different  ways 
the  friends  of  the  college,  students,  graduates,  trustees  and 
even  colleagues,  seem  to  them  so  to  misunderstand  its 
mission  as  to  minimize  or  to  falsify  its  intellectual  ideals. 
The  college  is  a  good  place  for  making  friends;  it  gives 
excellent  experience  in  getting  on  with  men;  it  has  excep- 
tional advantages  as  an  athletic  club;  it  is  a  relatively  safe 
place  for  a  boy  when  he  first  leaves  home;  on  the  whole 
it  may  improve  a  student's  manners;  it  gives  acquaintance 
with  lofty  ideals  of  character,  preaches  the  doctrine  of 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS          33 

social  service,  exalts  the  virtues  and  duties  of  citizenship. 
All  these  conceptions  seem  to  the  teacher  to  hide  or  to 
obscure  the  fact  that  the  college  is  fundamentally  a  place 
of  the  mind,  a  time  for  thinking,  an  opportunity  for  know- 
ing. And  perhaps  in  proportion  to  their  own  loftiness 
of  purpose  and  motive  they  are  the  more  dangerous  as 
tending  all  the  more  powerfully  to  replace  or  to  nullify 
the  underlying  principle  upon  which  they  all  depend, 
Here  again  when  misconception  clears  away,  one  can  have 
no  doubt  that  the  battle  of  the  teacher  is  a  righteous-  one. 
It  is  well  that  a  boy  should  have  four  good  years  of  athletic 
sport,  playing  his  own  games  and  watching  the  games  of 
his  fellows;  it  is  well  that  his  manners  should  be  improved; 
it  is  worth  while  to  make  good  friends;  it  is  very  desirable 
to  develop  the  power  of  understanding  and  working  with 
other  men;  it  is  surely  good  to  grow  in  strength  and  purity 
of  character,  in  devotion  to  the  interests  of  society,  in 
readiness  to  meet  the  obligations  and  opportunities  of 
citizenship.  If  any  one  of  these  be  lacking  from  the  fruits 
of  a  college  course  we  may  well  complain  of  the  harvest. 
And  yet  is  it  not  true  that  by  sheer  pressure  of  these,  by 
the  driving  and  pulling  of  the  social  forces  within  and 
without  the  college,  the  mind  of  the  student  is  constantly 
torn  from  its  chief  concern  ?  Do  not  our  social  and  practical 
interests  distract  our  boys  from  the  intellectual  achieve- 
ments which  should  dominate  their  imagination  and  com- 
mand their  zeal?  I  believe  that  one  may  take  it  as  the 
deliberate  judgment  of  the  teachers  of  our  colleges  to-day 
that  the  function  of  the  college  is  constantly  misunderstood, 
and  that  it  is  subjected  to  demands  which,  however  friendly 
in  intent,  are  yet  destructive  of  its  intellectual  efficiency 
and  success. 

in 

But  now  that  the  contention  of  the  teacher  has  been 
stated  and  reaffirmed  against  objections,  it  is  time  to  ask, 
What  does  it  mean?  And  how  can  it  be  justified?  By 


34  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

what  right  does  a  company  of  scholars  invite  young  men 
to  spend  with  them  four  years  of  discipleship?  Do  they, 
in  their  insistence  upon  the  intellectual  quality  of  their 
ideal  intend  to  give  an  education  which  is  avowedly  un- 
practical? If  so,  how  shall  they  justify  their  invitation, 
which  may  perhaps  divert  young  men  from  other  interests 
and  other  companionships  which  are  valuable  to  them- 
selves and  to  their  fellows?  In  a  word,  what  is  the  under- 
lying motive  of  the  teacher,  what  is  there  in  the  intellectual 
interests  and  activities  which  seems  to  him  to  warrant  their 
domination  over  the  training  and  instruction  of  young  men 
during  the  college  years  ? 

It  is  no  fair  answer  to  this  question  to  summon  us  to 
faith  in  intellectual  ideals,  to  demand  of  us  that  we  live 
the  life  of  the  mind  with  confidence  in  the  virtues  of  in- 
telligence, that  we  love  knowledge  and  because  of  our  pas- 
sion follow  after  it.  Most  of  us  are  already  eager  to  accept 
intellectual  ideals,  but  our  very  devotion  to  them  forbids 
that  we  accept  them  blindly.  I  have  often  been  struck 
by  the  inner  contradictoriness  of  the  demand  that  we  have 
faith  in  intelligence.  It  seems  to  mean,  as  it  is  so  commonly 
made  to  mean,  that  we  must  unintelligently  follow  intelli- 
gence, that  we  must  ignorantly  pursue  knowledge,  that  we 
must  question  everything  except  the  business  of  asking 
questions,  that  we  think  about  everything  except  the  use 
of  thinking  itself.  As  Mr.  F.  H.  Bradley  would  say,  the 
dictum,  "Have  faith  in  intelligence"  is  so  true  that  it  con- 
stantly threatens  to  become  false.  Our  very  conviction 
of  its  truth  compels  us  to  scrutinize  and  test  it  to  the  end. 

How  then  shall  we  justify  the  faith  of  the  teacher?  What 
reason  can  we  give  for  our  exaltation  of  intellectual  training 
and  activity?  To  this  question  two  answers  are  possible. 
First,  knowledge  and  thinking  are  good  in  themselves. 
Secondly,  they  help  us  in  the  attainment  of  other  values 
in  life  which  without  them  would  be  impossible.  Both 
these  answers  may  be  given  and  are  given  by  college  teachers. 
Within  them  must  be  found  whatever  can  be  said  by  way 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS          35 

of  explanation  and  justification  of  the  work  of  the  liberal 
college. 

The  first  answer  receives  just  now  far  less  of  recognition 
than  it  can  rightly  claim.  When  the  man  of  the  world 
is  told  that  a  boy  is  to  be  trained  in  thinking  just  because 
of  the  joys  and  satisfactions  of  thinking  itself,  just  in  order 
that  he  may  go  on  thinking  as  long  as  he  lives,  the  man  of 
the  world  has  been  heard  to  scoff  and  to  ridicule  the  idle 
dreaming  of  scholarly  men.  But  if  thinking  is  not  a  good 
thing  in  itself,  if  intellectual  activity  is  not  worth  while 
for  its  own  sake,  will  the  man  of  the  world  tell  us  what  is? 
There  are  those  among  us  who  find  so  much  satisfaction 
in  the  countless  trivial  and  vulgar  amusements  of  a  crude 
people  that  they  have  no  time  for  the  joys  of  the  mind. 
There  are  those  who  are  so  closely  shut  up  within  a  little 
round  of  petty  pleasures  that  they  have  never  dreamed  of 
the  fun  of  reading  and  conversing  and  investigating  and 
reflecting.  And  of  these  one  can  only  say  that  the  differ- 
ence is  one  of  taste,  and  that  their  tastes  seem  to  be  rela- 
tively dull  and  stupid.  Surely  it  is  one  function  of  the 
liberal  college  to  save  boys  from  that  stupidity,  to  give 
them  an  appetite  for  the  pleasures  of  thinking,  to  make 
them  sensitive  to  the  joys  of  appreciation  and  understand- 
ing, to  show  them  how  sweet  and  captivating  and  whole- 
some are  the  games  of  the  mind.  At  the  time  when  the 
play  element  is  still  dominant  it  is  worth  while  to  acquaint 
boys  with  the  sport  of  facing  and  solving  problems.  Apart 
from  some  of  the  experiences  of  friendship  and  sympathy 
I  doubt  if  there  are  any  human  interests  so  permanently 
satisfying,  so  fine  and  splendid  in  themselves  as  are  those 
of  intellectual  activity.  To  give  our  boys  that  zest,  that 
delight  in  things  intellectual,  to  give  them  an  appreciation 
of  a  kind  of  life  which  is  well  worth  living,  to  make  them 
men  of  intellectual  culture  —  that  certainly  is  one  part  of 
the  work  of  any  liberal  college. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  creation  of  culture  as  so  defined 
can  never  constitute  the  full  achievement  of  the  college. 


36  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

It  is  essential  to  awaken  the  impulses  of  inquiry,  of  experi- 
ment, of  investigation,  of  reflection,  the  instinctive  cravings 
of  the  mind.  But  no  liberal  college  can  be  content  with 
this.  The  impulse  to  thinking  must  be  questioned  and 
rationalized  as  must  every  other  instinctive  response.  It 
is  well  to  think,  but  what  shall  we  think  about?  Are  there 
any  lines  of  investigation  and  reflection  more  valuable 
than  others,  and  if  so,  how  is  their  value  to  be  tested? 
Or  again,  if  the  impulse  for  thinking  comes  into  conflict  with 
other  desires  and  cravings,  how  is  the  opposition  to  be 
solved?  It  has  sometimes  been  suggested  that  our  man 
of  intellectual  culture  may  be  found  like  Nero  fiddling  with 
words  while  all  the  world  about  him  is  aflame.  And  the 
point  of  the  suggestion  is  not  that  fiddling  is  a  bad  and 
worthless  pastime,  but  rather  that  it  is  inopportune  on 
such  an  occasion,  that  the  man  who  does  it  is  out  of  touch 
with  his  situation,  that  his  fiddling  does  not  fit  his  facts. 
In  a  word,  men  know  with  regard  to  thinking,  as  with 
regard  to  every  other  content  of  human  experience,  that  it 
cannot  be  valued  merely  in  terms  of  itself.  It  must  be 
measured  in  terms  of  its  relation  to  other  contents  and  to 
human  experience  as  a  whole.  Thinking  is  good  in  itself, 
—  but  what  does  it  cost  of  other  things,  what  does  it  bring 
of  other  values?  Place  it  amid  all  the  varied  contents  of 
our  individual  and  social  experience,  measure  it  in  terms 
of  what  it  implies,  fix  it  by  means  of  its  relations,  and  then 
you  will  know  its  worth  not  simply  in  itself  but  in  that 
deeper  sense  which  comes  when  human  desires  are  rational- 
ized and  human  lives  are  known  in  their  entirety,  as  well 
as  they  can  be  known  by  those  who  are  engaged  in  living 
them. 

In  this  consideration  we  find  the  second  answer  of  the 
teacher  to  the  demand  for  justification  of  the  work  of  the 
college.  Knowledge  is  good,  he  tells  us,  not  only  in  itself, 
but  in  its  enrichment  and  enhancement  of  the  other  values 
of  our  experience.  In  the  deepest  and  fullest  sense  of  the 
words,  knowledge  pays.  This  statement  rests  upon  the 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS          37 

classification  of  human  actions  into  two  groups,  those  of 
the  instinctive  type  and  those  of  the  intellectual  type.  By 
far  the  greater  part  of  our  human  acts  are  carried  on  without 
any  clear  idea  of  what  we  are  going  to  do  or  how  we  are 
going  to  do  it.  For  the  most  part  our  responses  to  our 
situations  are  the  immediate  responses  of  feeling,  of  per- 
ception, of  custom,  of  tradition.  But  slowly  and  painfully, 
as  the  mind  has  developed,  action  after  action  has  been 
translated  from  the  feeling  to  the  ideational  type;  in  wider 
and  wider  fields  men  have  become  aware  of  their  own 
modes  of  action,  more  and  more  they  have  come  to  under- 
standing, to  knowledge  of  themselves  and  of  their  needs. 
And  the  principle  underlying  all  our  educational  procedure 
is  that  on  the  whole,  actions  become  more  successful  as 
they  pass  from  the  sphere  of  feeling  to  that  of  understanding. 
Our  educational  belief  is  that  in  the  long  run  if  men  know 
what  they  are  going  to  do  and  how  they  are  going  to  do  it, 
and  what  is  the  nature  of  the  situation  with  which  they  are 
dealing,  their  response  to  that  situation  will  be  better 
adjusted  and  more  beneficial  than  are  the  responses  of  the 
feeling  type  in  like  situations. 

It  is  all  too  obvious  that  there  are  limits  to  the  validity 
of  this  principle.  If  men  are  to  investigate,  to  consider,  to 
decide,  then  action  must  be  delayed  and  we  must  pay  the 
penalty  of  waiting.  If  men  are  to  endeavor  to  understand 
and  know  their  situations,  then  we  must  be  prepared  to  see 
them  make  mistakes  in  their  thinking,  lose  their  certainty 
of  touch,  wander  off  into  pitfalls  and  illusions  and  fallacies 
of  thought,  and  in  consequence  secure  for  the  time  results 
far  lower  in  value  than  those  of  the  instinctive  response 
which  they  seek  to  replace.  The  delays  and  mistakes  and 
uncertainties  of  our  thinking  are  a  heavy  price  to  pay, 
but  it  is  the  conviction  of  the  teacher  that  the  price  is  as 
nothing  when  compared  with  the  goods  which  it  buys. 
You  may  point  out  to  him  the  loss  when  old  methods  of 
procedure  give  way  before  the  criticism  of  understanding, 
you  may  remind  him  of  the  pain  and  suffering  when  old 


38  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

habits  of  thought  and  action  are  replaced,  you  may  reprove 
him  for  all  the  blunders  of  the  past;  but  in  spite  of  it  all 
he  knows  and  you  know  that  in  human  lives  taken  separately 
and  in  human  life  as  a  whole  men's  greatest  lack  is  the  lack 
of  understanding,  their  greatest  hope  to  know  themselves 
and  the  world  in  which  they  live. 

Within  the  limits  of  this  general  educational  principle 
the  place  of  the  liberal  college  may  easily  be  fixed.  In 
the  technical  school  pupils  are  prepared  for  a  specific  work 
and  are  kept  for  the  most  part  on  the  plane  of  perceptual 
action,  doing  work  which  others  understand.  In  the  pro- 
fessional school,  students  are  properly  within  the  realm  of 
ideas  and  principles,  but  they  are  still  limited  to  a  specific 
human  interest  with  which  alone  their  understanding 
is  concerned.  But  the  college  is  called  liberal  as  against 
both  of  these  because  the  instruction  is  dominated  by  no 
special  interest,  is  limited  to  no  single  human  task,  but  is 
intended  to  take  human  activity  as  a  whole,  to  understand 
human  endeavors  not  in  their  isolation  but  in  their  relations 
to  one  another  and  to  the  total  experience  which  we  call 
the  life  of  our  people.  And  just  as  we  believe  that  the 
building  of  ships  has  become  more  successful  as  men  have 
come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  principles  involved  in  their 
construction;  just  as  the  practice  of  medicine  has  become 
more  successful  as  we  have  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the 
human  body,  of  the  conditions  within  it  and  the  influences 
without;  —  just  so  the  teacher  in  the  liberal  college  believes 
that  life  as  a  total  enterprise,  life  as  it  presents  itself  to  each 
one  of  us  in  his  career  as  an  individual,  —  human  living,  — 
will  be  more  successful  in  so  far  as  men  come  to  understand 
it  and  to  know  it  as  they  attempt  to  carry  it  on.  To  give 
boys  an  intellectual  grasp  on  human  experience  —  this,  it 
seems  to  me,  is  the  teacher's  conception  of  the  chief  function 
of  the  liberal  college. 

May  I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  second  answer 
of  the  teacher  defines  the  aim  of  the  college  as  avowedly 
and  frankly  practical?  Knowledge  is  to  be  sought  chiefly 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS          39 

for  the  sake  of  its  contribution  to  the  other  activities  of 
human  living.  But  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  as  definitely 
declared  that  in  method  the  college  is  fully  and  unre- 
servedly intellectual.  If  we  can  see  that  these  two  demands 
are  not  in  conflict  but  that  they  stand  together  in  the 
harmonious  relation  of  means  and  ends,  of  instrument  and 
achievement,  of  method  and  result,  we  may  escape  many 
a  needless  conflict  and  keep  our  educational  policy  in  single- 
ness of  aim  and  action.  To  do  this  we  must  show  that  the 
college  is  intellectual,  not  as  opposed  to  practical  interests 
and  purposes,  but  as  opposed  to  unpractical  and  unwise 
methods  of  work.  The  issue  is  not  between  practical  and 
intellectual  aims  but  between  the  immediate  and  the 
remote  aim,  between  the  hasty  and  the  measured  procedure, 
between  the  demand  for  results  at  once  and  the  willingness 
to  wait  for  the  best  results.  The  intellectual  road  to  suc- 
cess is  longer  and  more  roundabout  than  any  otKer,  but 
they  who  are  strong  and  willing  for  the  climbing  are  brought 
to  higher^evets""of~achievenTeiTt  than  they could  possibly 
have  attained  had  they  gone  straight  forward  in  the  path- 
way of  quick  returns.  If  this  were  not  true  the  liberal 
college  would  have  no  proper  place  in  our  life  at  all.  In 
so  far  as  it  is  true  the  college  has  a  right  to  claim  the  best 
of  our  young  men  to  give  them  its  preparation  for  the 
living  they  are  to  do. 

IV 

But  now  that  we  have  attempted  to  interpret  the  in- 
tellectual mission  of  the  college,  it  may  be  fair  to  ask, 
"Are  the  teachers  and  scholars  of  our  day  always  faithful 
to  that  mission?  Do  their  statements  and  their  practice 
always  ring  in  accord  with  the  principle  which  has  been 
stated?"  It  seems  to  me  that  at  two  points  they  are 
constantly  off  the  key,  constantly  at  variance  with  the 
reasons  by  which  alone  their  teaching  can  be  justified. 

In  the  first  place,  it  often  appears  as  if  our  teachers  and 
scholars  were  deliberately  in  league  to  mystify  and  befog 


4o  TEE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

the  popular  mind  regarding  this  practical  value  of  intel- 
lectual work.  They  seem  not  to  wish  too  much  said  about 
the  results  and  benefits.  Their  desire  is  to  keep  aloft  the 
intellectual  banner,  to  proclaim  the  intellectual  gospel, 
to  demand  of  student  and  public  alike  adherence  to  the 
faith.  And  in  general  when  they  are  questioned  as  to 
results  they  give  little  satisfaction  except  to  those  who  are 
already  pledged  to  unwavering  confidence  in  their  ipse 
dixits.  And  largely  as  a  result  of  this  attitude  the  American 
people  seem  to  me  to  have  little  understanding  of  the 
intellectual  work  of  the  college.  Our  citizens  and  patrons 
can  see  the  value  of  games  and  physical  exercises;  they 
readily  perceive  the  importance  of  the  social  give  and 
take  of  a  college  democracy;  they  can  appreciate  the 
value  of  studies  which  prepare  a  young  man  for  his  pro- 
fession and  so  anticipate  or  replace  the  professional  school; 
they  can  even  believe  that  if  a  boy  is  kept  at  some  sort  of 
thinking  for  four  years  his  mind  may  become  more  acute, 
more  systematic,  more  accurate,  and  hence  more  useful 
than  it  was  before.  But  as  for  the  content  of  a  college 
course,  as  for  the  value  of  knowledge,  what  a  boy  gains  by 
knowing  Greek  or  economics,  philosophy  or  literature, 
history  or  biology,  except  as  they  are  regarded  as  having 
professional  usefulness,  I  think  our  friends  are  in  the  dark 
and  are  likely  to  remain  so  until  we  turn  on  the  light. 
When  our  teachers  say,  as  they  sometimes  do  say,  that 
the  effect  of  knowledge  upon  the  character  and  life  of  the 
student  must  always  be  for  the  college  an  accident,  a  cir- 
cumstance which  has  no  essential  connection  with  its  real 
aim  or  function,  then  it  seems  to  me  that  our  educational 
policy  is  wholly  out  of  joint.  If  there  be  no  essential  con- 
nection between  instruction  and  life,  then  there  is  no  reason 
for  giving  instruction  except  in  so  far  as  it  is  pleasant  in 
itself,  and  we  have  no  educational  policy  at  all.  As  against 
this  hesitancy,  this  absence  of  a  conviction,  we  men  of  the 
college  should  declare  in  clear  and  unmistakable  terms  our 
creed  —  the  creed  that  knowledge  is  justified  by  its  results. 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS          41 

We  should  say  to  our  people  so  plainly  that  they  cannot 
misunderstand,  "Give  us  your  boys,  give  us  the  means  we 
need,  and  we  will  so  train  and  inform  the  minds  of  those 
boys  that  their  own  lives  and  the  lives  of  the  men  about 
them  shall  be  more  successful  than  they  could  be  without 
our  training.  Give  us  our  chance  and  we  will  show  your 
boys  what  human  living  is,  for  we  are  convinced  that  they 
can  live  better  in  knowledge  than  they  can  in  ignorance." 

There  is  a  second  wandering  from  the  faith  which  is  so 
common  among  investigators  that  it  may  fairly  be  called 
the  "fallacy  of  the  scholar."  It  is  the  belief  that  all  knowl- 
edge is  so  good  that  all  parts  of  knowledge  are  equally  good. 
Ask  many  of  our  scholars  and  teachers  what  subjects  a 
boy  should  study  in  order  that  he  may  gain  insight  for 
human  living,  and  they  will  say,  "It  makes  no  difference 
in  what  department  of  knowledge  he  studies;  let  him  go 
into  Sanskrit  or  bacteriology,  into  mathematics  or  history; 
if  only  he  goes  where  men  are  actually  dealing  with  in- 
tellectual problems,  and  if  only  he  learns  how  to  deal  with 
problems  himself,  the  aim  of  education  is  achieved,  he  has 
entered  into  intellectual  activity."  This  point  of  view, 
running  through  all  the  varieties  of  the  elective  system, 
seems  to  me  hopelessly  at  variance  with  any  sound  edu- 
cational doctrine.  It  represents  the  scholar  of  the  day 
at  his  worst  both  as  a  thinker  and  as  a  teacher.  In  so  far 
as  it  dominates  a  group  of  college  teachers  it  seems  to  me 
to  render  them  unfit  to  determine  and  to  administer  a 
college  curriculum.  It  is  an  announcement  that  they  have 
no  guiding  principles  in  their  educational  practice,  no 
principles  of  selection  in  their  arrangement  of  studies,  no 
genuine  grasp  on  the  relationship  between  knowledge  and 
life.  It  is  the  concerted  statement  of  a  group  of  men  each 
of  whom  is  lost  within  the  limits  of  his  own  special  studies, 
and  who  as  a  group  seem  not  to  realize  the  organic  relation- 
ships between  them  nor  the  common  task  which  should 
bind  them  together. 

In  bringing  this  second  criticism  against  our  scholars  I 


42  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

am  not  urging  that  the  principle  of  election  of  college  studies 
should  be  entirely  discontinued.  But  I  should  like  to 
inquire  by  what  right  and  within  what  limits  it  is  justified. 
The  most  familiar  argument  in  its  favor  is  that  if  a  student 
is  allowed  to  choose  along  the  lines  of  his  own  intellectual 
or  professional  interest  he  will  have  enthusiasm,  the  eager- 
ness which  comes  with  the  following  of  one's  own  bent. 
Now  just  so  far  as  this  result  is  achieved,  just  so  far  as  the 
quality  of  scholarship  is  improved,  the  procedure  is  good  and 
we  may  follow  it  if  we  do  not  thereby  lose  other  results 
more  valuable  than  our  gain.  But  if  the  special  interest 
comes  into  conflict  with  more  fundamental  ones,  if  what 
the  student  prefers  is  opposed  to  what  he  ought  to  prefer, 
then  we  of  the  college  cannot  leave  the  choice  with  him. 
We  must  say  to  him  frankly,  "If  you  do  not  care  for  liberal 
training  you  had  better  go  elsewhere;  we  have  a  special 
and  definite  task  assigned  us  which  demands  that  we  keep 
free  from  the  domination  of  special  or  professional  pursuits. 
So  long  as  we  are  faithful  to  that  task  we  cannot  give  you 
what  you  ask." 

In  my  opinion,  however,  the  fundamental  motive  of 
the  elective  system  is  not  the  one  which  has  been  mentioned. 
In  the  last  resort  our  teachers  allow  students  to  choose 
their  own  studies  not  in  order  to  appeal  to  intellectual  or 
to  professional  interest,  but  because  they  themselves  have 
no  choice  of  their  own  in  which  they  believe  with  sufficient 
intensity  to  impose  it  upon  their  pupils.  And  this  lack 
of  a  dominating  educational  policy  is  in  turn  an  expression 
of  an  intellectual  attitude,  a  point  of  view,  which  marks 
the  scholars  of  our  time.  In  a  word,  it  seems  to  me  that 
our  willingness  to  allow  students  to  wander  about  in  the 
college  curriculum  is  one  of  the  most  characteristic  expres- 
sions of  a  certain  intellectual  agnosticism,  a  kind  of  intel- 
lectual bankruptcy,  into  which,  in  spite  of  all  our  wealth 
of  information,  the  spirit  of  the  time  has  fallen.  Let  me 
explain  my  meaning. 

The  old  classical  curriculum  was  founded  by  men  who  had 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS          43 

a  theory  of  the  world  and  of  human  life.  They  had  taken 
all  the  available  content  of  human  knowledge  and  had 
wrought  it  together  into  a  coherent  whole.  What  they 
knew  was,  as  judged  by  our  standards,  very  little  in  amount. 
But  upon  that  little  content  they  had  expended  all  the 
infinite  pains  of  understanding  and  interpretation.  They 
had  taken  the  separate  judgments  of  science,  philosophy, 
history  and  the  arts,  and  had  so  welded  them  together, 
so  established  their-  relationships  with  one  another,  so  freed 
them  from  contradictions  and  ambiguities  that,  so  far  as 
might  be  in  their  day  and  generation,  human  life  as  a  whole 
and  the  world  about  us  were  known,  were  understood, 
were  rationalized.  They  had  a  knowledge  of  human 
experience  by  which  they  could  live  and  which  they  could 
teach  to  others  engaged  in  the  activities  of  living. 

But  with  the  invention  of  methods  of  scientific  investi- 
gation and  discovery  there  came  pouring  into  the  mind  of 
Europe  great  masses  of  intellectual  material,  —  astronomy, 
physics,  chemistry.  This  content  for  a  time  it  could  not 
understand,  could  not  relate  to  what  it  already  knew. 
The  old  boundary  lines  did  not  enclose  the  new  fields,  the 
old  explanations  and  interpretations  would  not  fit  the  new 
facts.  Knowledge  had  not  grown,  it  had  simply  been 
enlarged,  and  the  two  masses  of  content,  the  old  and  the 
new,  stood  facing  each  other  with  no  common  ground  of 
understanding.  Here  was  the  intellectual  task  of  the  great 
leaders  of  the  early  modern  thought  of  Europe:  to  re- 
establish the  unity  of  knowledge,  to  discover  the  relation- 
ships between  these  apparently  hostile  bodies  of  judgments, 
to  know  the  world  again,  but  with  all  the  added  richness 
of  the  new  insights  and  the  new  information.  This  was  the 
work  of  Leibnitz  and  Spinoza,  of  Kant  and  Hegel,  and 
those  who  labored  with  them.  And  in  a  very  considerable 
measure  the  task  had  been  accomplished,  order  had  been 
restored.  But  again  with  the  inrush  of  the  newer  dis- 
coveries, first  in  the  field  of  biology  and  then  later  in  the 
world  of  human  relationships,  the  difficulties  have  returned, 


44  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

multiplied  a  thousand  fold.  Every  day  sees  a  new  field 
of  facts  opened  up,  a  new  method  of  investigation  invented, 
a  new  department  of  knowledge  established.  And  in  the 
rush  of  it  all  these  new  sciences  come  merely  as  additions, 
not  to  be  understood  but  simply  numbered,  not  to  be 
interpreted  but  simply  listed  in  the  great  collection  of 
separate  fields  of  knowledge.  If  you  will  examine  the  work 
of  any  scientist  within  one  of  these  fields  you  will  find  him 
ordering,  systematizing,  reducing  to  principles,  in  a  word, 
knowing  every  fact  in  terms  of  its  relation  to  every  other 
fact  and  to  the  whole  field  within  which  it  falls.  But  at 
the  same  time  these  separate  sciences,  these  separate  groups 
of  judgment,  are  left  standing  side  by  side  with  no  intel- 
ligible connections,  no  establishment  of  relationships,  no 
interpretation  in  the  sense  in  which  we  insist  upon  it  within 
each  of  the  fields  taken  by  itself.  Is  it  not  the  character- 
istic statement  of  a  scholar  of  our  time  to  say,  "I  do  not 
know  what  may  be  the  ultimate  significance  of  these  facts 
and  these  principles;  all  that  I  know  is  that  if  you  will 
follow  my  methods  within  my  field  you  will  find  the  facts 
coming  into  order,  the  principles  coming  into  simple  and 
coherent  arrangement.  With  any  problems  apart  from  this 
order  and  this  arrangement  I  have  intellectually  no  con- 
cern." 

It  has  become  an  axiom  with  us  that  the  genuine  student 
labors  within  his  own  field.  And  if  the  student  ventures 
forth  to  examine  the  relations  of  his  field  to  the  surrounding 
country  he  very  easily  becomes  a  populariser,  a  litterateur, 
a  speculator,  and  worst  of  all,  unscientific.  Now  \  do  not 
object  to  a  man's  minding  his  own  intellectual  business  if 
he  chooses  to  do  so,  but  when  a  man  minds  his  own  business 
because  he  does  not  know  any  other  business,  because  he 
has  no  knowledge  whatever  of  the  relationships  which 
justify  his  business  and  make  it  worth  while,  then  I  think 
one  may  say  that  though  such  a  man  minds  his  own  affairs 
he  does  not  know  them,  he  does  not  understand  them. 
Such  a  man,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  demands  of  a 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE  IS          45 

liberal  education,  differs  in  no  essential  respect  from  the 
tradesman  who  does  not  understand  his  trade  or  the  pro- 
fessional man  who  merely  practices  his  profession.  Just 
as  truly  as  they,  he  is  shut  up  within  a  special  interest; 
just  as  truly  as  they  he  is  making  no  intellectual  attempt 
to  understand  his  experience  in  its  unity.  And  the  pity 
of  it  is  that  more  and  more  the  chairs  in  our  colleges  are 
occupied  by  men  who  have  only  this  special  interest,  this 
specialized  information,  and  it  is  through  them  that  we 
attempt  to  give  our  boys  a  liberal  education,  which  the 
teachers  themselves  have  not  achieved. 

I  should  not  like  to  be  misunderstood  in  making  this 
railing  accusation  against  .our  teachers  and  our  time.  If 
I  say  that  our  knowledge  is  at  present  a  collection  of  scat- 
tered observations  about  the  world  rather  than  an  under- 
standing of  it,  fairness  compels  the  admission  that  the  failure 
is  due  to  the  inherent  difficulties  of  the  situation  and  to  the 
novelty  of  the  problems  presented.  If  I  cry  out  against 
the  agnosticism  of  our  people  it  is  not  as  one  who  has  escaped 
from  it,  nor  as  one  who  would  point  the  way  back  to  the 
older  synthesis,  but  simply  as  one  who  believes  that  the 
time  has  come  for  a  reconstruction,  for  a  new  synthesis. 
We  have  had  time  enough  now  to  get  some  notion  of  our 
bearings,  shocks  enough  to  get  over  our  nervousness  and 
discomfiture  when  a  new  one  comes  along.  It  is  the  op- 
portunity and  the  obligation  of  this  generation  to  think 
through  the  content  of  our  knowing  once  again,  to  under- 
stand it,  so  far  as  we  can.  And  in  such  a  battle  as  this, 
surely  it  is  the  part  of  the  college  to  take  the  lead.  Here 
is  the  mission  of  the  college  teacher  as  of  no  other  member 
of  our  common  life.  Surely  he  should  stand  before  his 
pupils  and  before  all  of  us  as  a  man  who  has  achieved  some 
understanding  of  this  human  situation  of  ours,  but  more 
than  that,  as  one  who  is  eager  for  the  conflict  with  the 
powers  of  darkness  and  who  can  lead  his  pupils  in  enthusi- 
astic devotion  to  the  common  cause  of  enlightment. 


THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 


And  DOW,  finally,  after  these  attacks  upon  the  policies 
which  other  men  have  derived  from  their  love  of  knowl- 
edge, may  I  suggest  two  matters  of  policy  which  seem  to  me 
to  follow  from  the  definition  of  education  which  we  have 
taken?  The  first  concerns  the  content  of  the  college 
course;  the  second  has  to  do  with  the  method  of  its  presen- 
tation to  the  undergraduate. 

We  have  said  that  the  system  of  free  election  is  natural 
for  those  to  whom  knowledge  is  simply  a  number  of  separate 
departments.  It  is  equally  true  that  just  in  so  far  as 
knowledge  attains  unity,  just  so  far  as  the  relations  of  the 
various  departments  are  perceived,  freedom  of  election 
by  the  student  must  be  limited.  For  it  at  once  appears 
that  on  the  one  side  there  are  vast  ranges  of  information 
which  have  virtually  no  significance  for  the  purposes  of  a 
liberal  education,  while  on  the  other  hand  there  are  certain 
flplt  •••  Hfs  so  fundamental  and  vital  that  without  any  one 
of  them  a  liberal  education  is  impossible. 

I  should  like  to  indicate  certain  parts  of  human  knowledge 
which  seems  to  me  so  essential  that  no  principle  of  election 
should  ever  be  allowed  to  drive  them  out  of  the  course  of 
any  college  student. 

_First,  a  student  should  become  acquainted  with  the 
fundamental  motives  and  purposes  and  beliefs  which, 
clearly  or  unclearry  recognized,  underlie  all  human  experi- 
ence and  bind  it  together.  He  must  perceive  the  moral 
strivings,  the  intellectual  endeavors,  the  aesthetic  experi- 
ences of  his  race,  and  closely  linked  with  these,  determining 
and  determined  by  them,  the  beliefs  about  the  world  which 
have  appeared  in  our  systems  of  religion.  To  investigate 
this  field,  to  bring  it  to  such  clearness  of  form ularion  as  may 
be  possible,  is  the  task  of  philosophy  —  an  essential  *  '• 
in  any  liberal  education.  Secondly,  as  in  human  Irving, 
our  motives,  purposes  and  Beliefs  have  found  expression  in 
institutions,  —  those  conceited  modes  of  procedure  by 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE  IS  47 

which  we  work  together,  —  a  student  should  be  made 
acquainted  with  these.  He  should  see  and  appreciate 
what  is  intended,  what  accomplished,  and  what  left  undone 
by  such  institutions  as  property,  the  courts,  the  family, 
the  church,  the  mill.  To  know  these  as  contributing  and 
failing  to  contribute  to  human  welfare  is  the  work  of  our 
social  or  humanistic  sciences,  into  which  a  boy  must  go  on 
his  way  through  the  liberal  college.  Thirdly,  in  order  to 
understand  the  motives  and  the  institutions  of  human  life 
one  must  know  the  conditions  which  surround  it,  the  stage 
on  which  the  game  is  played.  To  give  this  information  is 
the  business  of  astronomy,  geology,  physics,  chemistry, 
biology  and  the  other  sciences  of  nature.  These  a  boy 
must  know,  so  far  as  they  are  significant  and  relevant  to  his 
purpose.  Fourthly,  as  all  three  of  these  factors,  the  mo- 
tives, the  institutions,  the  natural  processes  have  sprung 
from  the  past  and  have  come  to  be  what  they  are  by  change 
upon  change  in  the  process  of  time,  the  student  of.Tiuman 
life  must  try  to  learn  the  sequence  of  events  from  which  the 
present  has  come.  The  development  of  human  thought 
and  attitude,  the  development  of  human  f'q<;t'tii<-'r>"sj  ^h* 
development  of  tfre  world  and  of  fh^  ^'"jffT  nb""*  US  — 
all  these  must  be  known,  as  throwing  light  upon  present 
problems,  present  instrumentalities,  present  opportunities 
in  the  life  of  human  endeavor.  And  in  addition  to  these 
four  studies  which  render  human  "experience  in  terms  of 
abstract  ideas,  a  liberal  education  must  take  account  of 
those  j^>nrrftTf*  representations  of  life  which  are  given  in 
the  arts,  and  especially  in  the  art  of  literature.  It  is  well 
that  a  boy  should  be  acquainted  with  his  world  not  simply 
as  expressed  by  the  principles  of  knowledge  but  also  as 
depicted  by  the  artist  with  all  the  vividness  and  definiteness 
which  are  possible  in  the  portrayal  of  individual  beings 
in  individual  relationships.  These  five  elements,  then,  a 
young  man  must  take  from  a  college  of  liberal  training,  the 
contributions  of  philosophy,  of  humanistic  science,  of  natural 
science,  of  history,  and  of  literature.  So  far  as  knowledge 


48  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

is  concerned,  these  at  least  he  should  have,  welded  together 
in  some  kind  of  interpretation  of  his  own  experience  and 
of  the  world  in  which  .he  lives. 

My  second  suggestion  is  that  our  college  curriculum 
should  be  so  arranged  and  our  instruction  so  devised  that 
its  vital  connection  with  the  living  of  men  should  be  obvious 
even  to  an  undergraduate.  A  little  while  ago  I  heard  one 
of  the  most  prominent  citizens  of  this  country  speaking 
of  his  college  days,  and  he  said,  "I  remember  so  vividly 
those  few  occasions  on  which  the  professor  would  put 
aside  the  books  and  talk  like  a  real  man  about  real  things." 
Oh,  the  bitterness  of  those  words  to  the  teacher!  Our 
books  are  not  dealing  with  the  real  things,  and  for  the  most 
part  we  are  not  real  men  either,  but  just  old  fogies  and 
bookworms!  And  to  be  perfectly  frank_about  the  whole 
matter,  I  believe  that  in  large  measure  our  pupils  are  in- 
different to  their  studies  simply  because  they  do  not  see 
that  these  are  important. 

But  if  we  really  have  a  vital  course  of  study  to  present 
this  difficulty  can  in  large  measure  be  overcome.  It 
is  possible  to  make  a  Freshman  realize  the  need  of  trans- 
lating his  experience  from  the  forms  of  feeling  to  those 
of  ideas.  He  can  and  he  ought  to  be  shown  that  now, 
his  days  of  mere  tutelage  being  over,  it  is  time  for  him 
to  face  the  problems  of  his  people,  to  begin  to  think 
about  those  problemg__for  himself,  to  learn  what  other  men 

have    lf>arnpd     ar»d    fhrmghf    hpfnrp    him,    t'rj    a    W^Hj    tO    get 

himself  ready  to  take  his  place  among  those  who  are  re- 
sponsible for  the  guidance  of  our  common  life  by  ideas  and 
principles  and  purposes.  If  this~couIJ  be  done,  I  think 
we  should  get  from  the  reajity-loving  American,  boy  some- 
thing like  an  intellectual  enthusiasm,  something  of  the 
spirit  that  comes  when  he  plays  a  g^rnp  that^*>mg  to  him 
really  worth  playing.  But  I  do  not  believe  that  this  result 
can  be  achieved  without  a  radical  reversal  of  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  college  curriculum.  I  should  like  to  see  every 
freshman  at  once  plunged  into  the  problems  of  philosophy, 


WHAT  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE  IS  49 

into  the  difficulties  and  perplexities  about  our  institutions, 
into  the  scientific  accounts  of  the  world  especially  as  they 
bear  on  human  life,  into  the  portrayals  of  human  experience 
which  are  given  by  the  masters  of  literature.  If  this  were 
done  by  proper  teaching,  it  seems  to  me  the  boy's  college 
course  would  at  once  take  on  significance  for  him;  he  would 
understand  what  he  is  about;  and  though  he  would  be  a 
sadly  puzzled  boy  at  the  end  of  the  first  year,  he  would 
still  have  before  him  three  good  years  of  study,  of  investi- 
gation, of  reflection,  and  of  discipleship,  in  which  to  achieve, 
so  far  as  may  be,  the  task  to  which  he  has  been  set.  Let 
him  once  feel  the  problems  o£jthej2re^ent^_andJlis  historical 
studies  will  become^sigluficafrtt— let  him  know  what  other 
men  have  discovered  and  thought  about  his  problems, 
and  he  will  be  ready  to  deal  with  them  himself.  But  in 
any  case,  the  whole  college  course  will  be  unified  and  domi- 
nated by  a  single  interest,  a  single  purpose,  —  that  of  so 
understanding  human  life  as  to  be  ready  and  equipped  for 
the  practice  of  it.  And  this  would  mean  for  the  college, 
not  another  seeking  of  the  way  of  quick  returns,  but  rather 
an  escape  from  aimless  wanderings  in  the  mere  by-paths 
of  knowledge,  a  resolute  climbing  on  the  high  road  to  a 
unified  grasp  upon  human  experience. 


VI 

I  have  taken  so  much  of  your  time  this  morning  that  an 
apology  seems  due  for  the  things  I  have  omitted  to  mention. 
I  have  said  nothing  of  the  organization  of  the  college, 
nothing  of  the  social  life  of  the  students,  nothing  of  the 
relations  with  the  alumni,  nothing  of  the  needs  and  quali- 
fications of  the  teachers,  and  even  within  the  consideration 
of  the  course  of  study,  nothing  of  the  value  of  specialization 
or  of  the  disciplinary  subjects  or  of  the  training  in  language 
and  expression.  And  I  have  put  these  aside  deliberately, 
for  the  sake  of  a  cause  which  is  greater  than  any  of  them  — 
a  cause  which  lies  at  the  very  heart  of  the  liberal  college. 


5o  THE   LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

It  is  the  cause  of  making  clear  to  the  American  people  the 
mission  of  the  teacher,  of  convincing  them  of  the  value  of 
knowledge:  not  the  specialized  knowledge  which  contributes 
to  immediate  practical  aims,  but  the  unified  un^rstandirig 
which  is  Insight. 


III 
WHAT  DOES  THE  COLLEGE  PREPARE  FOR 

COLLEGE  education,  like  all  other  genuine  education, 
is  of  course  practical.  It  is  preparation.  Its  under- 
lying principle  is  very  simple.  Young  people  are  to  be 
called  upon  later  to  carry  on  certain  activities.  The  purpose 
of  the  preparation  is  to  bring  it  about  that  those  activities 
will  be  better  done  than  they  would  have  been  if  the  prepa- 
ration had  not  been  given.  If  in  any  case  it  can  be  shown 
that  a  student  is  not  thus  made  ready  for  better  doing,  if  it 
appears  that  the  graduates  of  a  school  are  not  more  suc- 
cessful than  they  would  have  been  had  they  not  attended 
the  school,  then  study  and  school  are  alike  condemned  and 
should  be  discarded.  School  and  college  are  both  to  be 
judged  by  practical  standards. 

But  what  are  the  activities  in  which  students  may  be 
expected  to  engage,  for  which  they  should  be  prepared? 
In  relation  to  the  goods,  the  possessions  of  life  they  fall 
into  three  groups.  If  our  education  prepares  properly 
for  each  of  these  then  it  is  socially  justified. 

The  classification  suggested  above  is  obvious  enough. 
First,  men  are  making  goods,  making  things  which  they 
want.  Second,  they  are  distributing  these  goods,  are 
assigning  to  each  man  his  share  of  them.  And  third,  they 
are  using  goods,  each  man  the  share  which  falls  to  his  lot. 

For  example,  men  take  the  forces,  the  stuff  of  the  material 
world  and  of  human  nature,  and  by  processes  of  cultivation 
and  of  manufacture,  make  out  of  these  books,  trees,  fruits, 
sermons,  songs,  boats,  shoes,  railways,  tennis  racquets  — 
all  the  multitudinous  things  which  taken  together  become 
the  common  stock  of  human  possessions.  Again,  men  build 


52  THE   LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

up  ways  of  distributing  these  possessions,  of  determining 
to  whom  each  bit  of  value  shall  go  to  be  kept  as  his  own. 
Thus  we  have  the  customs  of  rent  and  wages  and  property 
and  courts  and  inheritance  and  taxes  and  all  the  rest  of  our 
machinery  of  social  justice.  And  finally  each  man  in  his 
own  way  uses  what  he  has  for  such  purposes  as  he  thinks 
best.  He  reads  books,  or  puts  them  up  for  decoration; 
he  listens  to  sermons,  sails  a  boat,  travels  in  a  train,  swings 
a  tennis  racquet,  lies  under  the  shade  of  a  tree,  sips  the 
juice  of  a  fruit,  in  general  makes  of  what  he  has  what  he 
wants  in  the  way  of  experience. 

Now  it  is  these  three  sets  of  activities  for  which  our 
schools  and  colleges  are  making  young  people  ready.  We 
want  manufacturing  and  growing  better  done;  we  want 
distributing  better  done;  we  want  using  better  done.  If 
these  ends  be  accomplished  then  our  teaching  plays  its 
proper  part  in  social  and  individual  living;  if  not,  it  fails 
to  play  its  part. 

As  a  teacher  surveys  these  three  sets  of  activities  with 
which  his  work  is  concerned,  two  observations  will  readily 
occur  to  him  —  two  judgments  of  comparison.  He  may 
ask  first  as  to  the  relative  importance  of  the  three  tasks 
assigned,  and  second,  as  to  their  relative  difficulty.  In 
both  cases  he  will  find,  I  think,  an  ascending  scale  running 
from  manufacture,  through  distribution,  to  use,  an  ascend- 
ing scale  of  importance  and  of  difficulty. 

The  comparison  as  to  imp6rtance  is  rather  hard  to  put 
into  a  form  which  will  stand  the  test  of  criticism.  To  ask 
whether  the  making  or  distributing  or  the  using  of  wealth 
is  the  most  important  is  dangerously  like  inquiring  whether 
chickens  precede  eggs,  or  eggs  chickens.  Obviously  enough, 
all  three  activities  are  essential.  There  is  not  much  to  be 
gained  by  making  things  if  they  are  not  to  be  given  to  any 
one,  nor  much  gained  by  giving  them  if  they  are  not  used. 
But  they  cannot  be  used  unless  they  are  given,  nor  can  they 
be  given  unless  they  are  made.  To  distinguish  relative 
values  in  this  realm  seems  like  comparing  white  and  black 


WHAT  DOES  THE  COLLEGE  PREPARE  FOR    53 

crows  in  the  dark.  And  yet  there  is  a  certain  sense  in  which 
the  using  of  value  is  more  fundamental  than  either  making 
or  distributing  it.  In  a  very  real  sense,  using  is  human 
life  itself,  it  is  the  human  experience  for  the  sake  of  which 
the  other  activities  are  carried  on.  To  use  what  we  have 
is  the  very  process  of  living;  to  that  end  all  other  acts 
are  merely  contributory;  they  are  its  instruments  and 
machinery. 

The  differences  as  to  difficulty  are  much  more  readily 
perceived.  Relatively  manufacture,  the  production  of 
goods,  is  an  easy  task  for  men.  It  is  easy  in  the  sense  that 
we  master  it  with  ease.  This  does  not  mean  that  we  are 
not  called  by  it  to  strenuous  endeavors.  It  does  mean  that 
our  endeavors  are  successful.  What  we  do  in  this  field 
pays  quickly  and  surely  in  terms  of  results.  The  last  cen- 
tury has  seen  such  a  developing  control  of  the  processes 
of  manufacture  and  growth  that  our  wealth  has  increased 
by  leaps  and  bounds.  The  technical  processes  which  have 
been  devised  by  the  application  of  natural  science  to  the 
accomplishment  of  human  purposes  have  so  enlarged  our 
productive  power  that  as  compared  with  our  fathers  and 
grandfathers  we  roll  in  wealth  and  in  the  assurance  of 
greater  wealth  in  the  future.  Relatively  speaking,  we  have 
the  processes  of  the  production  of  wealth  in  hand. 

In  the  distribution  of  wealth  we  are  not  so  successful. 
The  world  is  torn  with  conflicting  theories  as  to  how  this 
should  be  done.  Men  are  quarreling  as  to  the  possession 
of  goods.  Nations  quarrel  with  nations,  individuals  with 
individuals,  and  we  do  not  easily  find  a  basis  for  the  settle- 
ment of  these  quarrels. 

In  a  country  driven  mad  by  injustice  and  tyranny,  men 
have  escaped  from  their  bonds  and  are  wildly  seeking  to 
formulate  and  to  put  into  action  principles  of  distribution 
subversive  of  all  that  men  in  other  countries  have  counted 
secure  and  essential.  In  safer  countries  where  the  pressure 
is  not  so  severe,  men  are  in  dread  lest  it  may  become  so 
and  are  forming  into  parties  which  view  each  other  with 


54  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

hostile  eye  and  with  stealthy  suspicion.  Here  we  find  the 
men  who  believe  that  whatever  has  been  is  right.  They 
hold  to  the  view  that  to  their  grandfathers  a  scheme  of 
social  justice  was  revealed  by  splendid  intuition  and  that 
he  who  would  depart  from  this  is  a  traitor  and  a  thief. 
To  such  men  the  cries  of  the  madmen  in  the  country  which 
has  found  release  are  so  dreadful  that  they  must  stop  their 
ears,  nay,  must  stop  the  ears  of  their  fellow-countrymen 
as  well.  These  two  groups  are  the  extremists  with  respect 
to  social  justice  —  the  men  who  would  break  our  present 
scheme  to  pieces  and  start  anew  and  those  who  hold  that 
scheme  so  sacred  that  the  suggestion  of  changing  it  is  not 
simply  false  but  also  vicious  and  sacrilegious.  Between 
these  two  are  most  of  us,  men  who  try  to  have  patience  and 
common  sense,  but  who  are  sadly  puzzled  and  perplexed 
just  now.  One  thing  we  know,  namely,  that  the  way  is  not 
clear,  old  procedures  are  not  surely  right,  old  answers 
cannot  be  accepted  without  question.  The  world  is  seek- 
ing wisdom  as  to  social  justice  in  distribution,  and  that 
wisdom  is  hard  to  get. 

But  more  difficult  yet  than  the  distributing  of  values  is 
the  human  task  of  using  them.  And  the  most  serious  as- 
pect of  the  difficulty  is  that  we  do  not  feel  it.  We  may  be 
baffled  by  the  problems  of  social  justice  but  at  least  we  are 
interested  in  them.  In  a  college  community  as  well  as  in  a 
public  forum  men  can  be  stirred  to  eager  and  desperate 
activity  by  the  perception  that  other  men  are  not  being  fairly 
treated,  that  human  beings  are  being  robbed  of  a  fair  chance 
at  the  opportunities  of  living.  We  may  not  know  what 
to  do  but  our  impulse  is  generous  and  our  will  resolute  to 
do  something,  if  only  the  mind  would  tell  us  what  it  is. 
But  in  the  realm  of  use,  in  apprehension  of  the  necessity 
of  taste  and  insight  and  appreciation  of  value,  we  are  hardly 
conscious  of  difficulty  at  all.  We  have  a  certain  blind 
faith  that  if  only  the  opportunities  of  life  are  given  they 
will  be  taken  and  human  lives  will  be  in  general  what  they 
ought  to  be.  Nothing  could  be  more  obvious  than  the 


WHAT  DOES  THE  COLLEGE  PREPARE  FOR    55 

falseness  of  such  a  faith  as  this.  Wealth  has  not  very 
generally  brought  to  those  who  have  it  the  fineness  of  taste 
and  the  niceness  of  discrimination  which  the  use  of  it  de- 
mands. Quite  as  often  it  has  brought  coarseness  of  feeling 
and  dullness  of  appreciation.  Our  civilization  does  not 
very  clearly  become  more  fine  as  it  becomes  more  rich. 
We  are  in  danger  of  having  the  world  in  our  hands  and 
losing  it  because  our  fingers  slip.  What  shall  we  do  with 
the  world  which  is  given  us  ?  That  is,  I  think,  the  hardest 
lesson  which  the  teacher  has  to  learn  and  teach. 

Here  then,  are  the  three  tasks  of  the  teacher.  How 
do  they  bear  upon  the  work  of  the  liberal  college?  In  a 
broad  general  way  it  is  true  that  the  teaching  of  the  pro- 
duction of  value  rests  with  the  technical  and  professional 
schools.  They  are  engaged  in  devising  ways  of  making 
goods.  And  again  may  we  say  that  relatively  speaking 
their  task  is  an  easy  one.  The  liberal  schools,  on  the 
other  hand,  are  concerned  with  both  the  second  and  the 
third  endeavors.  They  are  expected  to  inform  our  people 
as  to  how  the  goods  of  life  should fre  shared  and  how  they 
should  be  used. "*These"^are  the  two  fundamental  aims  of 
liberal  teaching.  " 

In  the  remainder  of  this  paper  I  should  like  to  press  upon 
the  college  the  claims  of  the  third  of  these  tasks  as  against 
a  constant  over-emphasis  of  the  second.  And  may  I  pro- 
test that  this  is  not  because  one  loves  the  second  less  but 
rather  because  one  loves  the  third  more.  It  would  perhaps 
be  truer  to  say  that  the  second  without  the  third  is  nothing 
and  that  therefore  love  for  it  demands  that  we  leave  it  no 
longer  bereft  of  its  fellow.  If  only  we  can  show  that  the 
notion  of  social  justice  is  not  a  complete  account  of  life, 
that  it  needs  the  supplementation  of  this  third  conception, 
then  perhaps  in  homes  and  churches  and  schools  and  col- 
leges we  may  get  a  wiser  and  saner  teaching  of  life  than  is 
now  given.  Let  us  then  condemn  and  vilify  the  ideal  of 
social  justice  in  order  to  bring  its  adherents  to  their  senses. 

The  point  at  issue  was  brought  to  clear  formulation  in 


56  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

a  public  discussion  in  which  the  writer  of  this  paper  took 
part  a  few  years  ago.  The  first  of  two  speakers  said,  "I 
would  not  give  a  snap  of  my  finger  for  a  scheme  of  education 
which  does  not  find  its  final  term  of  value  in  Service." 
To  which  the  second  speaker  replied,  "I  would  not  give 
a  snap  of  my  finger  for  a  scheme  of  education  or  of  life 
which  does  find  its  final  term  of  value  in  Service."  Such 
statements  as  these  have  all  the  exaggeration  of  public 
controversy  but  carefully  considered  they  define  an  issue 
which  demands  the  attention  of  the  liberal  teacher. 

Strictly  speaking  it  seems  to  me  clear  that  the  second  of 
the  above  statements  is  right.  Service,  as  such,  is  not  a 
term  of  value  at  all.  To  give  to  another  is  valuable  only 
in  a  secondary  and  derivative  sense,  never  in  a  final  one. 
It  is  the  thing  given  which  is  of  value.  There  is  nothing 
gained  by  giving  to  another  something  which  is  not  worth 
giving.  To  serve  one's  fellows  is  to  give  to  them  what 
they  need,  what  they  enjoy,  what  is  worth  while.  And  if  \ 
one  is  in  search  of  the  final  term  by  which  all  our  activities 
and  all  our  teaching  are  to  be  justified  we  must  find  it  among 
those  things  the  having  of  which  is  good  and  the  lack  of 
which  robs  human  living  of  its  value.  To  serve  is  to  give 
something  and  service  is  good  only  in  so  far  as  that  some-4 
thing  given  is  good. 

At  the  risk  of  seeming  flippant  and  unfair  I  should  like 
to  press  this  point  home  by  a  number  of  statements  which 
though  they  are  only  half-truths  are  yet  needed  because 
the  other  half  is  so  constantly  torn  away  from  its  fellow 
and  kept  before  our  students  as  if  it  were  the  total  and  the 
sufficient  truth. 

Much  of  the  teaching  and  preaching  which  our  students 
hear  is  far  too  self-centered  in  its  emphasis  upon  social 
justice  and  upon  the  duty  of  service.  After  all,  the  essential 
thing  is  not  that  we  should  make  the  world  right,  but  that 
it  should  be  right.  One  often  feels  that  some  of  our  youth- 
ful enthusiasts  are  haunted  by  the  dreadful  fear  that  there 
may  be  no  sinners  for  them  to  save,  no  broken  lives  for  them 


WHAT  DOES   THE  COLLEGE  PREPARE  FOR    57 

to  put  together  again.  As  against  this  one  must  protest 
that  in  the  last  analysis  the  receiving  of  value  does  as  much 
for  human  living  as  does  the  giving  of  it.  If  for  no  other 
reason,  this  is  true  because  after  all  no  one  can  give  unless 
there  is  some  one  who  will  take  his  gift.  And  if  the  taking 
be  not  good,  then  the  giving,  whose  final  justification  lies 
within  it,  cannot  be  good  either.  Clearly  enough,  in  the 
grand  total  of  human  experience,  giving  cannot  have  more 
value  than  the  taking  and  using  of  the  thing  given.  If  it 
be  not  good  to  use  then  it  is  not  good  to  give  the  thing 
used. 

And  from  another  point  of  view,  the  determination  to 
serve  one's  fellows  needs  to  be  kept  clear  in  mind  so  that 
it  may  be  successful.  It  is  well  enough  for  youthful  en- 
thusiasts to  go  out  with  the  determination  to  make  a  hun- 
dred men  happy,  to  make  a  hundred  lives  worth  while. 
But  simple  arithmetical  calculation  assures  us  that  such 
expectations  will  not  be  realized.  On  the  average  one 
man  cannot  make  more  than  one  life  worth  while,  for  the 
obvious  reason  that  somebody  must  have  the  life  which  is 
so  practiced  upon.  If  we  base  our  calculation  upon  "wel- 
fares" as  the  term  of  measurement,  and  say  that  each  man 
would  like  to  make  as  many  welfares  as  possible,  the  hard 
fact  remains  that  on  the  average  we  cannot  each  make  more 
than  one  of  them.  A  welfare  must  belong  to  somebody 
and  if  there  were  actually  created  more  welfares  than  men, 
the  trouble  would  be  that  there  would  not  be  enough  men 
to  take  them.  There  is  no  danger  of  course  of  such  a 
calamity  as  this.  Human  life  hardly  furnishes  us  on  the 
whole  with  half  a  welfare  apiece.  But  there  is  danger 
that  our  young  people  misconstrue  their  task,  state  it  to 
themselves  in  exaggerated  sentimental  terms  and  so  doom 
themselves  to  the  disappointment  and  sense  of  futility 
which  come  when  idle  dreams  collapse. 

From  still  another  point  of  view,  one  is  here  protesting 
against  the  externalism  of  our  social  teaching.  We  teach 
too  much  about  the  machinery  of  life  and .  far  too  little 


S8  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

about  life  itself.  We  tell  too  much  about  the  things  which 
may  be  done  and  too  little  about  what  they  are  done  for. 
As  a  people  we  have  immense  admiration  for  a  man  who 
builds  a  great  library  and  profound  disdain  for  a  man  who 
sits  down  quietly  in  the  library  to  read  a  book.  What  is 
he  doing  there,  we  ask.  Of  what  use  is  the  reading  of  the 
book?  What  will  it  enable  him  to  do?  And  if  one  answers 
that  he  reads  because  reading  a  good  book  is  a  good  human 
experience  and  that  therefore  it  may  be  done  not  for  the 
sake  of  something  else  but  for  its  own  sake,  practical  men 
think  that  we  have  gone  mad.  But  again,  let  us  protest 
that  if  reading  is  not  good  then  the  building  of  the  library 
was  not  good,  and  our  benefactor  is  not  good  and  nothing 
has  been  accomplished  by  all  that  he  has  given  and  done. 
If  there  are  not  values  in  life  then  doing  has  no  value  and 
the  builder  and  the  dreamer  go  down  together  in  a  common 
crash. 

The  same  principle  holds  on  other  sides  of  our  life.  We 
admire  men  who  can  write  books  and  men  who  can  paint 
pictures.  Such  men  seem  to  us  to  have  succeeded  —  if 
someone  else  tells  us  that  their  work  is  highly  regarded. 
But  we  as  a  people  are  robbing  both  writers  and  painters 
of  their  proper  success  because  we  do  not  give  them  readers 
and  seers  who  can  appreciate,  who  can  take  the  meaning, 
the  beauty  which  they  give.  It  is  true  that  we  pay  them 
money  for  their  efforts,  but  it  is  also  true  that  we  say  "Ah  " 
in  the  wrong  place,  that  we  are  thrilled  by  the  vulgar  and 
stupid  thing  and  left  cold  by  the  beauty  into  which  the 
spirit  of  the  artist  has  poured  itself.  There  is  no  surer 
way  of  killing  artists  and  writers  than  to  be  stupid  and 
dull  in  the  presence  of  what  they  have  created.  For  such 
murders  a  wealthy  crass  civilization  has  a  heavy  burden 
of  guilt  to  bear. 

What  then  shall  the  liberal  teacher  teach  as  the  represen- 
tation of  the  learning  which  seeks  to  know  what  life  may 
be?  Shall  he  forbid  men  to  serve  their  fellows?  We  have 
not  said  that.  To  say  that  in  colleges  men  preach  service 


WHAT  DOES   THE  COLLEGE  PREPARE  FOR    59 

badly  is  not  to  say  that  in  human  society  we  have  too  much 
generous  friendship.  We  have  far  too  little  of  it.  By 
every  means  in  our  power  we  must  build  it  up  so  that  in 
the  sharing  of  the  goods  of  life  men  may  act  toward  one 
another  like  friends  and  fellows  rather  than  like  competing 
beasts,  each  struggling  for  the  plunder  which  strength  and 
cunning  will  enable  him  to  take  from  other  men.  College 
students,  like  other  men,  must  learn  how  values  should  be 
shared  and  then  must  pledge  themselves  to  see  to  it  that 
justice  is  done,  nay  rather  must  be  as  eager  that  other 
men  shall  have  the  values  which  they  crave  as  that  the 
goods  they  wish  should  come  to  them. 

But  still  the  point  holds  good  that  all  such  eagerness  as 
this  will  come  to  little  unless  the  man  who  gives  and  he 
who  takes  have  taste  for  life.  There  is  the  final  test  of 
value.  There  is  the  point  where  all  our  strivings  succeed 
or  fail. 

Can  college  teachers  teach  that  lesson?  Perhaps  they 
can  if  they  have  learned  it.  But  they  will  find  a  hundred 
other  teaching  powers  outside  the  college  fighting  against 
them.  What  shall  they  do?  It  seems  to  me  that  first 
they  should  remain  apart  from  the  machinery  of  life,  re- 
fusing to  be  busy  with  it.  And  second  they  should  with 
very  steady  eyes  survey  the  goods  which  life  affords,  should 
try  to  see  what  life  may  be  in  terms  of  its  experiences, 
should  make  a  list  of  books,  and  trees,  and  songs,  and 
friends,  and  games,  and  arguments,  and  all  the  other 
splendid  things  that  men  can  use.  And  third  they  should  be 
sensitive  themselves,  discerning  what  is  fine  and  true  and 
generous  and  permanent,  and  cutting  it  off  with  sharp, 
clear-cut  avoidance  from  the  vulgar,  false,  selfish  and 
transitory  things  that  cheapen  life.  And  finally,  having 
some  taste  and  insight,  they  should  teach  them  to  their 
pupils,  in  whatever  ways  teaching  may  be  done. 

There  is  no  one  in  all  our  social  scheme  more  ambitious 
than  is  the  teacher.  He  is  making  the  mind  of  his  pupil 
so  that  it  may  be  fitted  to  the  world  in  which  he  lives. 


60  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

Knowledge  and  skill  must  be  developed  for  the  making 
of  wealth;  wisdom  and  fairness  must  be  established  for 
the  distributing  and  sharing  of  wealth.  But  above  all,  and 
as  the  end  of  all,  taste  and  sensitiveness  and  fineness  and 
intensity  of  appreciation  must  be  built  up,  so  that  our 
wealth  may  be  worth  giving  and  worth  having. 


IV 

MAKING  THE  MIND  OF  A  NATION 

HAS  this  nation  a  mind?  I  fear  not.  A  mind  has  unity 
or  at  least  seeks  to  have  it.  Perhaps  better,  a  mind 
is  unity  in  action.  A  mind  is  an  activity  which  gath- 
ers up  disconnected  opinions,  impulses,  theories  and  brings 
them  into  order.  Ideas,  if  they  are  within  the  same  mind, 
have  relations  to  one  another,  are  responsible  each  to  the 
other.  They  may  not  live  in  isolation,  nor  even  in  little  separ- 
ate clusters.  The  mind  whose  they  are,  demands  that  they 
be  one  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  This  craving,  this  zest  for 
unity  is  the  very  essence  of  a  life  of  thought.  Only  so  far 
as  a  man  expresses  it  can  he  be  said  to  live  as  an  individual 
mind  at  all.  Without  it  or  with  little  expression  of  it  he  is 
a  bundle  of  things,  a  group,  a  mass,  a  welter  of  conscious 
processes.  With  it  he  is  a  human  spirit.  Just  so  it  is 
with  the  thinking  of  a  nation.  If  there  are  within  it  many 
separate  streams  of  impulse,  of  opinion,  of  prejudice,  of 
information,  of  doubt,  or  of  dogmatism;  if  these  do  not  know 
each  other;  if  they  have  not  taken  as  a  common  hope 
the  goal  of  mutual  acquaintance  and  understanding,  the 
nation  has  no  mind.  It  is  a  group  or  many  groups.  Its 
life  is  incoherence  and  its  fate  is  that  which  incoherence 
gives  —  the  life  of  those  who  know  not  what  they  do  nor 
see  the  way  they  go. 

For  many  reasons  we  as  a  people  are  now  failing  to 
achieve  intellectual  unity.  People  from  many  separate 
and  different  races  have  been  poured  into  our  ranks.  Our 
own  national  tradition  of  individualism  has  unfitted  us  for 
the  breaking  down  of  barriers.  The  splitting  up  of  knowl- 
edge and  of  life  into  separate  compartments,  —  sciences, 

61 


62  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

arts,  trades,  professions  —  this  has  sundered  many  of  the 
connections  of  earlier  days.  We  are  not  dull,  and  yet  as 
a  people  we  are  not  intelligent.  Our  minds  are  active, 
keen,  spirited,  determined,  each  in  its  special  sphere.  The 
separate  things  we  do  are  done  with  skill  and  energy.  And 
yet  we,  as  a  people,  have  not  a  mind.  Our  common  life 
rises  very  little  above  the  level  of  the  mob,  the  crowd  — 
which  feels  but  does  not  think;  which  does  not  judge  but 
follows  changing  impulse  and  caprice.  Perhaps  we  are  as 
yet  too  young  to  have  a  mind.  Perhaps  we  grow  too  fast 
to  keep  ourselves  in  mind. 

But  now  whither  shall  we  turn  to  seek  the  making  of  a 
mind?  To  whom  shall  we  go  for  judging  of  our  separate 
interests,  for  understanding  of  our  follies,  conserving  our 
truths,  cooling  our  passions,  questioning  our  dogmas, 
criticising  our  thoughts.  Where,  in  our  social  scheme,  is 
judgment  to  be  found?  What  is  the  nervous  center  of  our 
life?^  Where  is  the  place  of  understanding?  Is  the  place 
of  judgment  to  be  found  in  the  newspaper?  I  fear  that  we 
do  not  so  regard  that  institution.  Do  we  not  rather  think 
of  it  as  partisan,  as  special  pleader,  as  used  to  represent  a 
cause,  rather  than  as  judge  or  critic,  assigning  to  every  case 
its  proper  value  and  significance?  This  common  judg- 
ment upon  editor  and  news  collector  may  not  be  true,  but  yet 
we  make  it,  and  so  long  as  it  is  made,  the  newspaper  cannot 
be  a  center  for  our  common  thinking.  Nor  can  the  maga- 
zine or  book  perform  the  service.  We  do  not  use  them  in 
this  way;  we  do  not  read  enough  of  things  worth  reading 
to  make  a  common  understanding.  Nor  for  another  set 
of  reasons  can  the  home,  the  many  homes,  nor  yet  the 
church,  the  many  separate,  unrelated  churches,  furnish  the 
thing  we  need.  No  one  of  these  commands  our  thinking 
as  a  whole.  And  even  less  are  our  public  men  equipped 
for  bringing  our  thinking  under  their  control.  More  even 
than  the  newspaper,  they  too  are  talked  about  as  advocates 
of  parties,  interests,  sections,  creeds,  rather  than  as  the 
guides  whom  we  may  trust  to  lead  us.  And  when  they 


MAKING   THE  MIND  OF  A  NATION          63 

come  before  us  discussing  public  policy,  we  are  as  often 
busy  in  peddling  gossip  behind  their  backs,  in  talking 
scandal  and  petty  spite,  as  in  listening  to  their  words, 
discussing  their  thoughts,  weighing  their  arguments,  con- 
sidering the  nation's  policy.  Perhaps  they  are  at  fault; 
perhaps  their  hearers;  more  likely  they  and  we  are  both  at 
fault.  However  that  may  be,  they  do  not  lead  us  in  trying 
to  understand  a  nation's  life  in  fair  and  generous  meeting 
of  opinion;  they  do  not  master  us  in  shaping  a  nation's 
mind. 

Where  then  shall  we  go  to  find  the  place  of  understanding, 
where  plead  that  judgment  may  be  given  upon  the  issues 
of  our  common  life?  More  than  any  other  institution,  it 
seems  to  me,  the  school  and  college  must  assume  the  task. 
And  especially  the  liberal  college  must  endeavor  to  become 
the  place  where  mind  is  made  and  molded.  The  liberal 
college  is  a  place  where  we  are  trying  to  gather  up  the 

,  religious,  political,  in- 
dustrial, social,  —  are  trying  to  bring  these  together  so 
that  men  may  understand  them.  Out  of  this  stuff,  this 
content  or  experience,  the  college  tries  to  make  a  single 
thing,  a  meaning,  a  scheme  of  life,  an  interpretation  of  what 
men  are  and  may  become.  Just  that  and  nothing  else 
is  what  the  college  of  liberal  arts  intends  to  do.  With  that 
accomplished,  it  succeeds  according  to  the  measure  of  the 
accomplishment.  With  that  neglected  or  not  done,  what- 
ever else  it  may  achieve,  no  institution  is  a  college.  Call 
it  whatever  else  you  please,  a  school  for  boys,  a  country 
club,  a  factory  for  making  tools  for  industry,  an  idler's 
paradise,  a  shop  for  grinding  gerunds,  a  rag-bag  store  house 
for  ill-assorted  facts  —  these  are  not  colleges.  To  be  a 
place  of  understanding,  to  fashion  minds  \for  men,  to  make 
a  nation's  mind,  that  is  the  aim  that  leads  us  on. 

Of  course,  to  gaze  at  such  a  goal  as  this  is  dreaming; 
of  course,  one  knows  that  such  a  vision  will  never  be  made 
true.  But  these  are  days  for  daring  deeds  that  cannot  be 
done.  And  colleges  are  always  young  enough  in  spirit  to 


64  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

follow  the  roads  that  never  come  to  endings.  The  task 
cannot  be  done  but  still  it  must  be  done.  To  make  a 
nation's  mind,  —  to  help  in  making  it,  perhaps  to  lead  the 
way  —  that  is  the  task  for  every  one  of  us,  trustee  and 
teacher,  graduate  and  undergraduate  alike.  This  nation 
has  so  great  a  part  to  play  that  it  must  know  its  lines.  And 
we  must  read  the  play,  assign  the  parts  and  make  them 
altogether  into  one.  We  must  not  be  a  mob,  a  crowd, 
our  speech  an  incoherent  clash  and  clatter  of  unrelated 
groans,  and  shouts  and  yells.  This  nation,  like  an  in- 
dividual mind,  must  seek  to  understand  itself,  to  feel,  to 
will,  to  appreciate  the  part  it  has  to  play,  must  play  its 
part  with  understanding.  And  we  within  that  part  must 
try  to  make  our  lines  stand  out  vivid  and  clear.  This 
nation  needs  a  mind  with  which  to  play  its  part.  The 
college  must  know  the  play  and  make  the  mind,  the  minds, 
which  shall  interpret  and  express  it. 


PART  II 
THE  PARTICIPANTS  IN  THE  PROCESS 

THE  three  papers  which  follow  are  given  to  a  con- 
sideration of  the  friends  and  supporters  of  the 
college.  Their  relations  to  each  other  and  their 
relations  to  the  college  are  regarded  with  somewhat  anxious 
eyes. 

The  first  paper  was  given  at  the  meeting  of  the  Phi  Beta 
Kappa  society  of  Harvard  University,  June  18,  1917.  It 
takes  the  motto  of  the  society,  "Learning  at  the  Helm 
of  Life,"  as  the  "governing  ideal  of  the  college.  It  sum- 
mons trustees,  teachers,  presidents,  graduates,  and  under- 
graduates to  give  an  account  of  their  allegiance  to  that 
ideal. 

The  second  paper,  "The  Freedom  of  the  College,"  ap- 
peared in  the  Atlantic  Monthly  of  January,  1918.  It  is 
concerned  with  the  relationship  between  teaching  and  study 
on  the  one  hand  and  freedom  of  thought  and  speech  on  the 
other.  It  finds  freedom  to  be,  both  for  college  and  for 
teacher,  primarily  not  a  privilege  but  a  duty. 

The  third  paper  was  given  at  a  meeting  of  the  New  Eng- 
land Association  of  Colleges  and  Preparatory  Schools, 
November  7,  1914.  It  was  one  of  a  series  of  papers  which 
discussed  the  values  of  various  factors  in  the  life  of  the 
college  as  a  whole.  This  paper  finds  side  by  side  with 
the  studies  of  the  classroom,  the  Student  Activities  of  the 
community  outside  the  classroom.  It  asks  as  to  the  proper 
relationship  between  activities  and  studies. 


THE  COLLEGE  AS  CRITIC 

I  COME  to-day  to  talk  with  you  about  colleges.  I  have 
not  in  mind  Harvard,  nor  even  Amherst  —  but  just  col- 
leges in  the  large,  especially  American  colleges.  We  shall 
be  concerned  notwith  technical  schools  or  professional  schools 
or  even  with  universities,  but  with  plain,  old-fashioned 
colleges  of  liberal  culture. 

I  feel  justified  in  presenting  this  theme  to-day  because 
of  the  relationship  between  the  society  of  Phi  Beta  Kappa 
and  the  liberal  college.  I  suppose  a  member  of  the  society 
may  be  defined  as  "a  person  who  has  been  very  successful 
in  a  liberal  college."  To  know  one  of  these  two  institutions 
is  then  to  know  the  other.  If  we  can  know  what  a  college 
is  and  so  what  success  in  a  college  is,  we  may  be  able  to  tell 
the  members  of  Phi  Beta  Kappa  just  what  they  are.  I  am 
sure  they  would  be  interested  to  know.  But  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  they  already  know  what  they  are  and  will  tell 
us,  we  may  reverse  the  procedure.  If  what  they  have  done 
constitutes  success  in  college  life,  and  if  they  will  tell  us 
what  they  have  done,  we  then,  knowing  what  success  in 
college  is,  may  learn  what  a  college  intends  to  be  and  do. 
That  surely  we  should  be  interested  to  know. 

As  between  these  two  procedures,  courtesy  would  sug- 
gest that  we  assume  that  the  members  of  this  society  do 
know  what  they  are  about.  I  propose,  therefore,  that  we 
take  the  society  and  its  principles  for  granted,  and  that 
from  these  as  our  starting-point  we  attempt  to  define  the 
nature  of  the  college,  its  aims,  and  its  problems. 

What,  then,  is  the  society?  Does  it  describe  itself; 
does  it  set  forth  its  purpose  and  ideal?  It  flies  a  pennant, 

66 


THE  COLLEGE  AS  CRITIC  67 

as  you  all  know  well.  Those  letters  of  its  name  are  not 
mere  empty  sounds.  They  mean  a  thought,  <£iXo(7o<£ia 
£iov  Kv/Se^Vrjs,  which  is,  being  translated,  "Learning 
at  the  helm  of  life."  I  love  the  figure  which  those  words 
suggest :  the  bark  of  life  adventuring  out  into  the  open  sea, 
tossed  by  the  waves  which  bear  it  up,  driven  by  the  winds, 
carried  by  the  currents,  swinging  with  the  tides,  but  ever 
as  it  goes,  with  learning  at  the  helm  —  learning  which  knows 
the  waves  and  watches  them,  learning  which  spies  upon 
the  winds  and  turns  the  bark  to  use  them,  learning  which 
measures  the  currents  and  the  tides  and  plays  the  winds 
against  them,  learning  which  knows  the  port  behind  and 
sees  the  port  before,  learning  which  does  not  fetch  or  carry, 
which  does  not  drive  or  batter,  learning  which  sees  and 
guides  —  learning,  the  pilot,  at  the  helm  of  life! 

Yes,  I  think  we  know.  The  members  of  Phi  Beta  Kappa 
are  the  men  who  fly  that  pennant.  They  have  not  all  been 
elected  to  the  society,  and  perhaps  some  men  have  been 
voted  in  who  have  never  looked  aloft  to  see  the  pennant 
where  it  flies.  But  whether  in  or  out,  those  are  the  men 
of  whom  we  talk  to-day.  These  men  have  taken  learning 
as  their  guide.  Let  strength  and  custom  bear  them  up 
and  carry  them  on,  let  feeling  drive  them  forth,  let  mood 
and  circumstance  divert  their  course,  let  yearnings  sweep 
them  here  and  there,  but  yet  they  try  to  see,  to  know, 
to  understand,  to  tell  whither  they  ought  to  go  and  how  it 
shall  be  done.  Learning  at  the  helm  of  life!  I  greet  the 
goodly  fellowship  of  those  who  fly  that  flag. 

But  now  what  is  a  college?  Why,  it  is  that  in  which  to 
fly  this  flag  is  to  succeed  and  to  fly  another,  any  other,  is 
to  fail.  A  college  is  a  place,  a  group,  a  comradeship  of 
those  who  follow  learning  as  their  guide  and  who  welcome 
others  in  the  same  pursuit.  A  college  is  a  spirit,  a  way  of 
life,  a  manner  of  being;  it  is  the  will  to  see  the  way  we  go. 
And  we  who  set  our  bounds  by  fence  and  yard,  by  brick  and 
stone,  credits  and  tests,  books  and  degrees,  what  does  the 
college  think  of  us?  These  days  of  strife  are  days  when 


68  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

men  must  tell  what  flag  they  fly,  what  leader  they  obey, 
what  loyalty  they  own.  I  am  inclined,  therefore,  as  speaker 
for  the  society  of  those  who  follow  learning,  to  demand  of 
colleges  that  they  present  themselves  and  give  account  of 
jwhat  they  have  done  and  failed  to  do  in  striving  for  our 
goal. 

My  proposal  is  that  we  summon  to  the  bar  of  judgment 
of  this  society  those  groups  of  men  who  call  themselves  the 
sons  and  servants  of  Alma  Mater.  Let  them  appear  in 
turn,  graduate,  undergraduate,  teacher,  president,  trustee, 
benefactor,  friend.  Let  each  one  come  and  we  will  see  how 
he  comports  himself  in  presence  of  the  flag  we  raise. 


And  first,  by  rules  of  good  procedure,  I  summon  the 
alumni.  In  the  courts  of  moral  judgment  it  has  been 
decreed  of  men  and  institutions  that  by  their  fruits  they 
shall  be  known.  Let  the  college,  then,  bring  forth  its  fruits, 
those  spirits  which  it  has  nourished  and  cultured;  let  us 
see  how  good  or  bad  they  are. 

And  as  the  court  prepares  to  hear  the  case,  what  is  the 
charge?  It  is  a  serious  one.  "Their  heads  have  been 
turned  round;  they  who  should  look  ahead  are  looking  back; 
the  college,  when  it  taught  them,  set  them  with  eyes  before 
to  see  the  way,  but  they  have  craned  their  necks  until  the 
muscles  are  all  awry;  their  eyes  are  looking  backward. 
And  be  it  further  said  that  they  have  done  this  thing  be- 
cause of  love  for  us,  though  a  mistaken  love.  They  think 
the  college  far  behind  them,  an  experience  of  their  youth, 
and  so  they  look  around.  But  it  is  far  before,  leading  them 
on,  and  they  are  missing  it  because  their  heads  are  turned." 

"But,"  the  defense  will  urge,  "this  is  a  new  and  strange 
demand.  There  is  no  law  upon  the  statute-book  that 
specifies  which  way  a  college  man  shall  hold  his  head. 
Have  we  not  done  the  things  the  college  asked  of  us  r  Have 
we  not  loved  it,  worked  for  it,  supported  it,  declared  abroad 


THE  COLLEGE  AS  CRITIC  69 

that  it  is  best  of  all  the  colleges  the  world  has  ever  seen? 
We  should  have  thought  that  some  sort  of  moral  leprosy 
had  befallen  any  man  who  failed  of  this.  Have  we  not 
labored  hard  to  serve  the  fortunes  of  the  college?  Have" we 
not  arranged  and  sat  through  banquets,  have  we  not  can- 
vassed the  schools  for  boys  to  fill  the  ranks,  have  we  not 
formed  committees  and  councils  to  make  the  college  grow 
and  boom;  have  we  not  given  our  time  and  our  money, 
and  planned  that  other  men  should  give  their  money  too?" 
Yes,  they  have  done  these  things;  and  college  presidents, 
whose  hope  it  is  to  change  the  baser  metals  into  gold,  have 
called  them  good.  But  in  the  judgment  of  the  court  we 
hold  to-day,  that  verdict  must  be  modified.  "These 
things  which  you  have  done  are  good  not  in  themselves  but 
only  in  so  far  as  they  express  a  loyalty  which  lies  far  deeper 
than  they  go.  These  acts  of  kindness  to  the  college  would 
seem  to  make  of  it  a  beggar  to  its  children,  a  thing  that 
lives  on  alms,  that  cries  aloud  for  bounty.  But  in  the 
deeper  sense,  the  college  is  not  poor  but  rich;  she  has 
great  wealth  to  give;  and  in  the  last  resort  the  only  thing 
her  sons  can  do  for  her  is  to  take  from  her  hands  the  riches 
that  she  offers.  To  take,  and  not  to  give,  is  what  she  asks 
her  children.  And  he  who  fails  to  take  from  her  and  take 
again,  no  matter  what  he  does  in  outward  act,  is  not  her 
own;  she  will  have  none  of  him." 

But  now  another  plea  may  come.  "Of  course,"  we  shall 
be  told,  "no  one  would  ever  measure  loyalty  in  terms  of 
banquets  and  committees,  gifts  made  and  students  found. 
These  are  the  incidentals  of  a  man's  affection  for  his  college. 
But  the  real  test  lies,  as  you  say,  in  the  use  one  makes  of 
what  she  gave  him.  He  serves  his  college  best  who  justi- 
fies her  training  by  the  work  he  does.  Let  him  go  out  and 
make  his  place  in  the  world.  Let  him  succeed  and  do, 
and  men  will  give  the  glory  to  the  college  from  which  he 
came."  And  so  we  count  our  graduates  and  study  their 
careers.  We  find  among  them  doctors,  lawyers,  merchants, 
ministers,  teachers,  and,  if  their  work  is  good,  we  say, 


7o  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

"There  is  the  proof;  see  what  a  college  we  have  here; 
you  know  it  by  its  fruits  indeed;  its  men  have  made  their 
marks  in  life;  need  any  more  be  said?" 

But  here  again  the  plea  is  only  half  a  truth  and  cannot  be 
accepted  for  the  whole.  We  are  not  trying  at  the  bar  a 
school  of  business  or  a  school  of  law,  but  a  college  of  liberal 
arts.  We  wish  for  evidence  that  those  whom  it  has  trained 
have  done  its  work,  have  not  departed  from  its  spirit. 
What  shall  the  evidence  be;  how  shall  we  show  that  any 
man  has  done  the  college  work?  I  know  no  other  test  than 
this  —  that  man  is  loyal  to  a  college  who  shares  its  interests, 
does  what  it  would  do.  If  a  college  believes  that  biology 
should  be  studied,  no  man  can  be  a  member  of  the  college 
unless  he  wants  to  know  the  truths  biology  has  to  tell. 
If  it  be  the  purpose  of  a  college  to  follow  after  learning, 
whether  it  be  science  or  philosophy,  literature  or  art,  no 
man  is  of  the  college  who  has  ceased  from  that  pursuit. 
What  is  the  college  for?  Is  it  not  this:  to  start  men  on  the 
way  of  learning?  If  you  would  know  in  this  case  or  in  that 
whether  or  not  philosophy  has  been  well  taught,  I  should 
advise  that  you  inquire  whether  or  not  the  boys  who  learned 
in  college  have  kept  on  learning  through  their  later  years. 
If  economics  be  not  studied  by  the  graduates,  it  did  but 
little  for  the  boys  who  listened  to  the  talk  or  read  about 
it  in  the  books.  The  college  is  a  group  of  men  who  follow 
after  learning;  if  any  man  has  ceased  from  this,  I  care  not 
how  he  may  succeed  in  other  things,  he  is  not  of  the  college. 

There  is  a  current  theory  implicit  in  the  plea  just  made, 
which  we  who  judge  to-day  cannot  accept  and  must  con- 
demn while  now  we  have  the  chance.  It  is  the  theory 
that  what  boys  study  in  college  makes  no  difference.  "All 
that  is  needed  for  a  college  education  is  that  some  subjects 
shall  be  studied  well,  that  proper  method  shall  be  gained,  and 
so  the  mind  shall  be  well  trained  to  meet  the  serious  tasks 
which  wait  it  in  the  world."  That  theory  has  done  so 
much  of  harm  in  every  way,  the  court  with  difficulty  re- 
strains itself  within  the  bounds  of  proper  language.  The 


THE  COLLEGE  AS  CRITIC  71 

theory  makes  of  literature  and  science,  history  and  art, 
not  human  interests  and  pursuits,  but  five-finger  exercises 
for  children's  discipline.  It  says  to  boys:  "These  are  the 
things  we  give  to  drill  you  in  your  plastic  youthful  years; 
take  them  and  do  as  you  are  told  until  the  drilling  has 
been  done;  and  then  forget  them  when  you  have  become 
a  man." 

But  as  against  this  theory,  I  protest,  the  value  of  the 
subjects  taught  in  college  is  that  they  are  the  learning  which 
serves  men  as  their  guide.  They  are  not  play  or  drill  for 
children;  they  are  the  wisdom  of  the  world  gathered  for 
human  life.  They  are  not  learned  in  four  short  years  nor 
yet  in  fourscore  either.  As  against  the  counter-theory  I 
would  declare,  "No  subject  has  a  right  within  a  college 
course  unless  we  may  expect  our  boys  who  study  it  to  keep 
on  studying  it  so  long  as  they  may  live."  I  know  the 
statement  is  extreme  and  "subject"  is  a  term  that  needs 
to  be  defined.  But  I  am  crying  out  against  a  monstrous 
thing,  and  so  I  cry  aloud,  forgetting  for  the  moment  the 
presence  of  the  court  and  the  sobriety  its  laws  demand. 

But  now  to  sum  it  up,  what  shall  we  say  of  college  gradu- 
ates? Are  we  to  judge  them  good  or  bad?  And  still  we 
say,  in  spite  of  pleas,  "not  very  good;  their  heads  are 
turned  around."  I  fear  they  think  of  college  as  a  place 
in  which  their  liberal  studies  reached  an  end,  a  place  in 
which  to  have  one's  taste  of  history  and  art,  philosophy 
and  science,  and  then  to  put  them  aside  except  so  far  as 
they  may  serve  professional  ends.  The  college  is  for  them 
too  much  a  school  for  boys,  a  home  of  childish  interests  and 
pursuits,  —  a  thing  which  they  may  help,  may  serve,  may 
love,  —  the  place  from  which  they  come  to  meet  the  world, 
and  yet  essentially  a  place  which  they  have  left  behind  with 
other  boyhood  things.  But  they  are  wrong.  College  is  not 
an  ending  but  a  commencement  of  a  way  of  life.  Here 
men  are  not  to  cease  from  liberal  study,  but  to  find  out 
what  it  is.  Here  are  revealed  the  vital  interests  of  mankind 
and  so  set  forth  that  one  may  take  them  to  himself,  make 


72  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

them  his  own  and  follow  where  they  lead.  No,  he  who  thinks 
of  college  as  a  place  to  cease  from  learning,  to  get  it  done 
with  so  that  he  may  go  to  work,  is  all  turned  round.  Good 
fellow  he  may  be,  loyal  and  true,  strong  and  efficient,  and 
yet  the  mother  whom  he  loves  yearns  over  him  in  vain, 
because  his  eyes  are  seeking  her  where  she  is  not.  How 
shall  she  make  him  turn  and  see  her  where  she  is? 

II 

And  now  the  undergraduate  comes  forth  to  face  the  court. 
He  is  a  clever  lad,  a  very  clever  lad  at  meeting  charges. 
I  know  that  well  from  many  years  of  being  a  Dean.  "What 
do  you  say?"  we  ask  him.  And  he  replies,  "Whatever 
charge  you  make  I  will  admit,  and  yet  I  am  'Not  guilty/ 
There  may  be  something  wrong  with  me  but  I  am  not  to 
blame."  And  if  you  do  not  catch  him  up  he  will  go  on  with 
counter-charge  something  like  this:  "I  understand  you 
say  I  do  not  study.  Whose  fault  is  that?  I  study  hard 
enough  at  law  or  medicine  or  office  desk.  Why  don't  I 
study  hard  with  you?  And  why,  I'd  like  to  know,  do  so 
many  of  my  friends,  four  out  of  every  ten  who  come  to  get 
the  training  which  you  give,  put  it  aside  and,  leaving  college, 
turn  to  other  things  that  seem  worth  while?  Oh,  yes, 
there's  something  wrong  all  right;  but,  it  seems  to  me, 
it's  up  to  you,  not  me."  What  can  one  do  in  face  of  such 
a  counter-charge  as  this?  The  boy  is  right.  We  have  not 
even  made  him  see  that  "wrong  all  right"  is  wrong,  that 
"up  to  you"  is  not  a  phrase  to  use  in  presence  of  the  court 
or  Dean.  But  there  the  trouble  lies.  Somehow  we  have 
not  made  him  see.  The  court  dismisses  the  defendant  as 
"guilty  but  not  responsible,"  and  as  he  goes  he  cocks  an 
eye  and  grins  delightfully.  "I  knew  you  wouldn't  get  me," 
he  declares,  "you'd  better  try  the  Faculty." 

in 

I  must  confess  some  hesitation  in  taking  the  step  which 
now  awaits  us.  To  summon  the  teacher  to  appear  before 


THE  COLLEGE  AS  CRITIC  73 

the  bar  of  judgment  requires  much  courage:  the  thought 
of  it  may  make  one  tremble  and  shrink  for  fear  of  meeting 
at  some  turn  the  ghost  of  Academic  Freedom.  But,  1 
recall,  it  is  not  I  who  give  the  summons,  but  the  society 
that  speaks  through  me.  And  so,  leaning  on  one  another, 
we  call  the  college  teacher  to  appear.  It  may  be  he  will 
come.  And  if  he  does,  let  us  go  on. 

"You  are  the  man  who  made  the  graduate?"  we  ask. 
"Yes,"  he  replies,  "I  made  him  out  of  such  stuff  as  was 
provided  me."  "And  are  you  satisfied  with  what  you 
have  produced?"  "Oh,  no,"  he  says,  "the  stuff  was  not 
adapted  to  my  purpose.  You  see,  the  boys  who  come  to 
college  are  not  well  fitted  for  the  college  work.  There  is 
no  learning  in  their  homes,  nor  any  love  of  it;  there  is  no 
genuine  training  in  the  schools;  the  social  world  from 
which  they  come,  to  which  they  go,  sets  little  value  on  the 
scholarship  we  have  to  give,  and  so  the  boys  have  little 
longing  for  it."  "We  understand  you  then  to  say,  the  work 
is  unsuccessful  but  you  are  not  to  blame?"  "Yes,  that  is 
it.  When  homes  and  schools  and  social  life  are  better,  I 
shall  do  better  work,  but  not  till  then." 

And  shall  we  let  him  too  escape,  after  the  manner  of  the 
undergraduate?  No,  he  must  stand  and  take  responsibility. 
There  are  not  many  things  of  which  I  am  sure  about  a 
college,  but  this  I  know  —  the  teacher  is  the  college  in  the 
active  sense;  all  other  things  are  circumstance,  machinery, 
arrangements;  he  is  the  mind  that  learns  and  teaches; 
if  he  does  well,  then  all  is  well;  if  he  does  ill,  the  college  is  a 
failure. 

Admitting,  then,  that  there  are  many  evils  of  circum- 
stance, what  is  our  charge  against  the  college  teacher? 
What  does  he  fail  to  do  that  might  be  done  to  master  cir- 
cumstance? He  seems  to  me  to  lack  a  proper  sense  of  his 
importance.  He  does  not  clearly  realize  the  task  he  has 
to  do.  He  teaches  subjects,  studies,  fields;  he  does  not 
lead  men  in  following  learning  as  the  guide  of  life.  May 
I  explain? 


74  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

If  learning  is  to  be  the  guide  of  life,  it  must  be  one,  not 
many.  Learning  is  criticism;  it  is  interpretation.  And 
criticism,  what  is  that?  It  is  the  bringing  together  of 
separate  things  to  find  out  their  relations.  It  is  the  calling 
to  account  of  this  or  that  in  terms  of  that  or  this.  It  is 
the  finding  of  principles  that  run  through  many  separate 
things  and  bind  them  together,  making  them  one.  Learn- 
ing interprets;  it  takes  the  fragments  of  our  life,  our  knowl- 
edge, and  makes  of  them  a  unity,  a  whole.  Each  bit, 
by  itself,  is  clear  but  meaningless.  Learning  interprets 
them,  gives  them  significance  one  for  another,  makes  out 
of  them  a  scheme  of  life,  a  system  of  knowledge  which  one 
can  understand  and  use.  Learning  interprets,  criticizes, 
makes  the  many  one. 

But  what  of  college  teachers  ?  Do  they  believe  in  learn- 
ing? It  seems  to  me  that  many  of  them  believe  much 
more  in  subjects,  believe  in  knowledge  in  the  scattered 
sense.  Each  one  of  them  knows  one  field  well,  better  than 
any  other  member  of  his  college  does.  This  is  his  field 
and  here  he  speaks  with  high  authority.  But  does  he  talk 
of  other  fields  as  well?  No,  he  had  better  not  do  that! 
To  speak  of  things  that  others  know  better  than  you  is  not 
professionally  wise.  You  may  be  wrong,  and  then  where 
are  you?  But  if  the  teachers  all  do  this,  where  are  the 
students?  We  in  our  wealth  of  knowing  have  split  up 
knowledge  into*  many  hundred  parts.  Of  these  a  teacher 
takes  some  two  or  three.  The  undergraduate,  by  our  laws, 
takes  five  a  semester,  ten  a  year,  and  when  in  four  years 
he  has  taken  forty  of  them,  his  work  is  done  and  he  may 
graduate.  But  does  he  understand  the  things  he  knows, 
can  he  interpret  them,  make  use  of  them  in  knowing  life? 
How  shall  he  know  his  subjects  in  this  way  if  they  are 
taught  the  other  way?  How  shall  his  mind  be  liberalized 
by  minds  whose  law  it  is  to  know  the  special  from  the 
special  point  of  view?  I  wonder  if  our  teachers  do  believe 
in  liberal  training? 

Is  this  a  strange,  nonsensical  demand?     I  do  not  wish 


THE  COLLEGE  4S  CRITIC  75 

to  be  absurd  nor  yet  to  be  misunderstood.  But  it  seems 
clear,  terribly  clear,  to  me  that  teachers  in  the  colleges  are 
not  commanding  and  dominating  the  spirits  of  their  boys 
because  they  have  no  purpose  which  has  a  proper  claim 
to  domination.  They  can  relate  their  subjects  to  the 
trades,  can  show  how  botany  will  serve  the  grower  of  food, 
how  physics  guides  the  engineer,  how  economics  helps  the 
business  man,  and  if  a  boy  is  looking  to  a  trade,  they  grip 
him  hard  and  carry  him  away.  Yet  this  is  not  the  learning 
that  we  seek,  but  only  some  fragments  of  it.  Can  they 
interpret  botany  and  food  supply,  physics  and  engineering, 
economics  and  business,  each  for  the  others  and  each  for 
any  other  bit  of  knowledge  that  men  have  gained  about  the 
world?  Can  they  bring  all  this  knowledge  into  order, 
reducing  it  to  principles,  making  of  it  a  knowing  of  the 
world  in  which  men  live  and  of  the  human  life  itself?  Can 
they  interpret  what  we  know  and  make  it  all  significant? 

I  know  what  men  will  say  against  this  thing  I  urge. 
How  can  a  man  know  more  than  one  field  well?  And  if 
one  cannot,  what  is  the  value  of  making  judgments  in  a 
realm  you  have  not  mastered,  of  trying  to  understand  the 
things  you  do  not  know?  But  what  is  the  alternative? 
Are  men  to  be,  so  far  as  they  may  study  at  all,  simply  a 
group  of  experts,  each  master  in  his  field?  And  what  of 
those  who  do  not  specialize  in  any  branch  of  knowledge? 
Are  they  to  have  no  intellectual  life  at  all?  Just  as  a 
protest,  I  would  define  a  liberally  educated  man  as  one 
who  tries  to  understand  the  whole  of  knowledge  as  well 
as  one  man  can.  I  know  full  well  that  every  special  judg- 
ment that  he  makes  will  be  inadequate.  I  know  the 
experts  have  him  on  the  hip,  each  expert  at  one  point. 
But  yet  for  human  living  as  a  whole,  for  living  as  men  should 
live,  I'll  match  a  liberally  educated  man  against  the  field 
of  experts  and  have  no  fear  that  any  one  of  them  will  beat 
him. 

Have  we  not  tragic  illustration  of  the  principle  to-day 
in  this  great  war  which  we  have  entered?  Have  we  not 


76  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

seen  a  people  which  was  the  very  centre  of  learning  of  the 
world,  beloved  and  honored  for  the  knowledge  that  it  gave, 
have  we  not  seen  it  let  that  knowledge  fall  asunder  into 
separate  parts,  the  sciences  and  arts  which  make  life  merely 
efficient?  Have  we  not  seen  the  generous,  human  view  of 
life  which  bound  it  to  the  world  contract  and  split  to  special, 
partial  views  that  cut  men  off,  and  send  them  at  each  others' 
throats  to  murder?  And  just  the  tragedy  is  this,  —  the 
special  view  when  taken  by  itself  is  so  convincing  and  so 
clear,  so  accurate,  that  if  you  take  it  as  it  stands  it  cannot 
but  be  true;  you  must  be  ruthless  in  your  disregard  of  all 
things  else.  But  meanwhile  other  men  with  other  points 
of  view  fully  as  clear  are  blind  to  you  as  you  are  blind  to 
them.  And  so  men  fight.  But  we  have  entered  on  the 
war  to  put  an  end  to  fighting,  not  for  a  special  interest  of 
our  own,  not  for  a  private  cause  which  we  would  serve,  but 
in  the  hope  that  men  may  come  to  understanding,  may 
find  a  way  to  know  each  other  and  to  live  in  peace. 

It  seems  to  me  we  need  to-day  a  Socrates  to  come  again 
as  Socrates  of  old  to  Athens,  to  tell  us  that  just  as  life  is 
one,  so  learning  is  one  and  every  man  should  have  it  so  far 
as  one  man  can.  And  then  with  Socrates  we  might  inquire 
how  learning  may  be  taught,  and  just  like  him  might  gather 
young  men  round  us  to  study  the  way  of  life.  If  that 
should  come  again,  we  should  have  colleges  as  nowhere  in 
the  world  we  have  them  now. 

What,  then,  should  teachers  say  to  boys  who  come  to 
college?  I  think  they  should  say  this:  "The  college  is  a 
place  where  men  are  studying  human  life,  man  and  the 
world  in  which  he  lives.  We  take  it  that  your  coming  here 
means  that  you  join  us  in  that  enterprise,  that  you  are  eager 
to  understand  what  human  living  is  and  does.'*  And  if  a 
man  outside  should  hear  the  words,  I  doubt  not  he  would 
sound  a  loud  guffaw.  "Oh  ho,"  he  says,  "you  ask  a  boy 
of  eighteen  years  to  master  human  life,  to  know  it  as  a 
whole;  is  this  the  thing  that  you  would  have  him  do  in 
college?"  Yes,  that  is  the  thing  he  should  do  in  college, 


THE  COLLEGE  AS  CRITIC  77 

should  do  so  long  as  he  may  live;  he  will  not  finish  it  in 
four  short  years,  nor  yet  in  fourscore  either.  But  he  may 
join  the  brotherhood  of  those  who  fly  the  flag,  who  have  put 
learning  at  the  helm  of  life.  He  may  array  himself  with 
men,  wiser  than  he,  who  have  labored  long  and  are  yet 
laboring  for  the  cause.  He  may  join  others,  foolish  like 
himself,  but  who  in  joyful  youth  delight  in  doing  things 
that  never  can  be  done.  He  may  feel  kinship  with  the 
older  men  who  went  before  along  the  path  and  yet  are 
traveling  it,  with  hope  and  fear,  in  the  goodly  company 
of  those  who  seek  to  see  the  way_and  follow  it.  This,  it 
would  seem  to  me,  would  be  to  go  to^college. 

What  will  the  teacher  answer  to  the  verdict  of  the  court  ? 
What  will  he  say?  If  I  have  known  his  spirit  there  are  two 
answers  he  will  make.  First,  "I  cannot  do  this  task; 
it  is  too  great."  And  second,  "Shall  I  have  a  chance  to 
try  it  freely,  with  no  one  coercing  or  restraining  me?" 

And  to  the  first  the  court  replies:  "Whether  you  can  or 
not,  you  must.  No  people  can  live  and  rule  itself  by  its 
own  thought  and  will,  no  people  can  be  free,  unless  it  be 
interpreted  and  criticized  within  itself.  And  if  the  college 
cannot  give  such  learning,  then  who  can?  You  may  not 
shun  the  task.  To  you  as  critic  and  interpreter,  all  men 
must  come.  To  you  the  church,  the  state,  the  home,  the 
school,  rich  man  and  poor,  the  builder-up,  the  breaker- 
down,  each  one  must  bring  his  thoughts,  his  hopes  and 
fears,  his  doubts  and  creeds,  his  strivings  and  opinions, 
and  you  must  show  him  what  they  are  in  terms  of  their 
relations  to  others  which  his  fellows  bring.  You  must  be 
sane  as  other  men  are  not;  you  must  have  knowledge 
which  others  cannot  gain;  you  must  be  fearless  and  honest 
as  others,  tied  by  interest,  may  seldom  be;  you  are  the 
student  set  apart  to  view  the  whole,  to  try  to  understand, 
a  free  untrammeled  human  spirit  seeking  the  truth  for 
guidance  of  mankind.  And  you  must  gather  round  you 
younger  men,  young  lads  whose  wits  are  keen,  whose  wills 
are  strong  and  spirits  high,  and  set  them  to  the  task,  must 


78  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

make  them  join  with  you  in  trying  to  think  the  problems 
through,  and  then  must  send  them  forth  to  play  their 
parts  in  the  activities  of  men  and  yet  to  follow  learning 
as  their  guide.  You  will  not  do  it  well;  your  heart  will 
break  with  disappointment  and  despair;  and  yet  you  will 
keep  on  for  very  joy  of  it,  because  in  doing  this  you  make 
a  college,  and  that  is  what,  as  teacher,  you  are  to  do." 

And  now  the  second  answer:  "Shall  you  be  free  with  no 
one  coercing  or  restraining  you?  Who  would  restrain 
you?"  "Why,  any  special  point  of  view  that  thinks  itself 
the  truth  might  try  to  hinder  me.  Perhaps  the  church, 
perhaps  the  state,  perhaps  the  home  or  school,  perhaps 
the  radical  who  finds  the  world  all  wrong,  or  the  conservative 
who  finds  it  right,  —  each  one  of  these,  thinking  his  own  the 
truth,  may  hate  me  for  the  other  truths  I  hold  beside  his 
own.  And  shall  I  yet  be  free  to  criticize,  to  seek  the  mean- 
ing of  the  whole?"  And  still  the  court  replies:  "Of  course 
you  shall;  who  could  restrain  you?"  And  then  the  secret 
fear  that  lurks  within  the  teacher's  heart  comes  out.  "Per- 
haps the  college  might  restrain  me.  Have  you  forgotten 
that  I  am  chosen  and  paid  by  other  members  of  the  college 
group?  I  do  not  choose  myself  as  teacher.  I  do  not 
decide  whether  or  not  I  shall  be  kept,  nor  on  what  terms. 
I  am  the  servant  of  another  group  of  men  whose  will  is 
law.  Perhaps  they  might  restrain  me." 


IV 

It  is  quite  clear  the  court  must  summon  the  trustee,  to 
ask  of  him  the  answer  to  the  teacher's  question.  "Are 
you  the  owner  of  the  college?"  "Yes,  in  the  legal  sense, 
I  am."  "And  who  elected  you  to  hold  this  place  of  power?" 
"My  fellow  trustees."  "And  have  you,  as  a  group,  the 
power  to  choose  the  teachers,  to  fix  their  terms  of  service 
and  of  compensation,  to  tell  what  subjects  shall  be  taught 
and  how  they  shall  be  taught?"  "We  have."  "And  are 
you  as  a  group  the  representatives  of  all  the  different  classes, 


THE  COLLEGE  y/S  CRITIC  79 

interests,  and  parties  within  the  social  order,  or  are  you  very 
much  alike  in  point  of  view?"  "We  are,  I  think,  a  special 
group,  and  being  chosen  by  ourselves,  we  tend  to  keep 
within  a  fairly  limited  point  of  view."  "What  then,  we  ask 
of  you,  shall  be  our  answer  to  the  teacher's  question?  Is 
he  a  free  man  in  his  work?  May  he  have  confidence  that 
in  the  task  of  bringing  different  points  of  view  together 
you  will  support  him,  and  not  demand  that  he  give  favor 
to  your  own?"  And  here,  I  think,  a  trustee  who  is  honest 
and  intelligent,  will  hesitate  and  qualify  his  answer.  "We 
are  not  paragons  of  wisdom,"  he  will  say;  "we  have  our 
frailties  and  our  prejudices,  our  interests  and  our  limitations, 
and  doubtless  these  have  their  effects  upon  the  judgments 
which  we  make  about  the  business  of  the  college.  And 
yet  against  this  fact  two  others  may  be  weighed.  We  are 
trustees,  not  for  the  furthering  of  our  interests,  but  for  the 
sake  of  education,  because  we  wish  to  do  whatever  we  can 
to  help  the  cause  of  learning.  Again,  although  we  are  a 
special  group,  we  are  upon  the  whole  within  the  class  of 
those  who  hold  the  splendid  human  faith  in  freedom  of 
thought  and  speech,  by  which  all  higher  civilizations  have 
been  lifted  up.  You  ask  me  whether  or  not  the  teacher 
may  be  free,  and  I  reply,  'Yes,  that  is  our  purpose,  however 
well  or  ill  we  may  succeed  in  making  it  effective." 

What,  then,  shall  we  say  of  the  trustee?  I  think  his  plea 
is  good.  He  does  not  claim  to  do  more  than  he  can.  In 
the  days  gone  by  he  has  done  splendid  service  for  the  col- 
leges. And  yet  the  method  of  self-election  cannot  remain 
as  a  final  form  of  college  organization.  A  college  is  a  place 
of  criticism.  From  this  it  follows  that  not  even  in  the 
legal  sense  can  it  be  permanently  owned  by  any  special 
self-selecting  group  of  men.  I  am  not  raising  here  the 
question  of  special  interest  or  self-seeking.  That  issue 
seems  to  me  at  present  unimportant.  I  am  not  asking 
how  the  personnel  of  boards  of  trustees  may  be  improved. 
I  do  not  think  that  any  other  method  of  choice  would  have 
given  us  trustees  so  able  or  so  well  adapted  to  their  work. 


80  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

But  the  real  issue  is  that  of  the  intellectual  leadership  of  a 
people  who  believe  that  they  believe  in  democracy.  The 
colleges  cannot  lead,  as  critics  lead,  unless  the  people  trust 
them.  And  in  the  field  of  thought,  as  in  the  realm  of 
politics,  our  people  will  not  permanently  follow  leaders 
whom  others  choose  to  guide  them.  The  college  as  critic 
must  command  the  confidence  of  every  one  who  comes 
to  it  for  judgment.  It  may  not  be  of  any  party,  any  sect, 
or  any  creed.  It  may  not  be  committed  to  any  interest, 
any  cause  or  any  class.  It  must  in  some  sense  stand  apart, 
aloof;  it  must  command  the  confidence  of  men.  I  think 
that  we  have  kept  the  present  scheme  of  choosing  our  trus- 
tees because  there  is  no  other  group  whose  wisdom  we  could 
trust  to  choose  them.  But  we  are  on  the  road  toward 
giving  this  responsibility  to  the  graduates.  What  charge 
could  be  more  terrible  against  the  college  than  this  —  that 
those  whom  it  has  trained,  whom  it  sends  out  prepared  to 
care  for  other  institutions  cannot  be  trusted  to  take  care 
of  it?  However  terrible  the  charge,  I  think  it  has  so  far 
been  true.  But  in  the  future,  as  we  learn  to  do  our  work, 
I  think  our  graduates  will  be  toward  us  more  nearly  what 
they  ought  to  be.  I  think  their  heads  will  be  turned  round 
again,  and  as  they  go  with  us  along  the  way  we  shall  trust 
them  to  take  the  fortunes  of  the  college  in  their  hands,  to 
keep  it  safe  and  free  from  harm.  They  have  the  will  to 
do  it  now,  and  we  must  add  to  this  an  understanding  of 
what  the  college  is  and  what  it  wills  to  do. 


But  now  the  teacher  speaks  again:  "What  of  the  presi- 
dent? You  have  not  summoned  him.  His  is  the  power 
which  all  men  fear."  Then,  let  him  come!  What  is  the 
charge?  "He  is  too  powerful.  Through  him  trustees 
must  act  and  speak;  by  him  teachers  are  recommended 
for  election;  to  his  approval  teachers  must  submit  their 
work;  by  him  the  college  is  explained  abroad;  to  him 


THE  COLLEGE  AS  CRITIC  81 

come  graduates  seeking  for  information  and  offering  advice; 
he  must  be  master  of  the  college  life;  he,  as  the  common 
servant  of  them  all,  assumes  to  dominate  the  whole."  This 
is  the  charge.  What  does  the  culprit  answer?  We  feel 
his  kinship  with  the  undergraduate  when  once  again  we 
hear  the  plea,  "Guilty  but  not  responsible."  The  president 
is  far  more  powerful  than  he  ought  to  be.  But  just  what 
is  his  power?  Is  it  not  this,  that  he  adjusts  conflicting 
interests?  All  about  him  are  parties  and  causes,  men  who 
cannot  agree,  and  they  demand  some  one  to  judge  between 
them.  Trustees  and  donors,  departments  and  faculty, 
teachers  and  other  teachers,  alumni,  old  and  young,  serious 
and  gay,  the  undergraduate  boy  of  every  type  and  kind,  — 
each  has  his  point  of  view,  each  has  his  special  purpose, 
each  serves  a  cause.  And  all  these  forces  surging  in  the 
college  must  find  some  place  of  meeting,  some  point  of 
contact.  That  point  of  contact  is  the  president.  But  all 
the  power  he  has  comes  from  the  forces  round  about  him. 
If  they  can  understand  each  other;  if  they,  amid  their 
separate  points  of  view,  can  find  the  common  purpose  of 
the  college  as  a  whole;  if  they  are  minded  not  so  much 
to  urge  the  special  cause  as  to  advance  the  general  cause  of 
learning,  —  just  in  so  far  as  they  do  this,  administrative 
power  will  dwindle  and  fall  away.  I  do  not  mean  that 
members  of  the  college  are  selfishly  pursuing  separate 
claims,  but  I  do  mean  that  we  have  fallen  into  a  way  of 
doing  college  business  that  constantly  increases  presidential 
power.  I  think  this  way  of  doing  things  has  come  upon 
us  quite  inevitably,  —  and  that  because  we  have  not  been 
content  with  studying  and  teaching;  we  have  been  growing 
too.  At  times  it  seems  as  if  that  were  our  greater  task. 
More  wealth  has  come,  more  books,  more  land,  more 
buildings,  more  prestige,  more  students,  more  courses,  more 
teachers,  more  of  everything.  And  every  member  of  the 
college  has  been  stirred  by  instincts  of  growth  to  claim  his 
share  and  use  it.  But  I  am  daring  to  hope  that  for  the 
colleges  at  least  the  days  of  growth  are  nearly  past,  that  we 


82  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

shall  soon  decide  we  have  enough  of  things  that  men  can 
give,  so  much  we  cannot  well  take  more.  And  when  that 
day  does  come,  we  may  be  quiet  and  peaceful,  doing  our 
work.  And  when  the  day  is  here,  I  venture  to  predict 
the  president  will  lose  much  of  his  power,  will  take  the 
place  he  really  ought  to  hold.  During  the  time  of  growth 
the  struggling,  fighting  forces  of  the  college  life  have  torn 
him  from  his  proper  place  and  hurled  him  aloft  above  the 
heads  of  all.  And  they  have  kept  him  there  by  the  sheer 
pressure  of  their  contacts  from  beneath.  But  in  the  hap- 
pier days  to  come  when  conflicts  cease,  I  hope  he  may 
escape  from  his  captivity,  may  come  to  earth  to  stand 
among  his  peers,  teacher  and  student  as  his  fellows  are, 
officially,  if  you  please,  the  chairman  of  the  faculty. 

You  see  the  court  predicts  that  in  the  coming  years  two 
changes  will  take  place  in  college  organization  —  two 
changes  by  absorption.  Trustees,  we  think,  will  be  ab- 
sorbed by  graduates,  become  their  council,  agents,  repre- 
sentatives. And  presidents  will  be  absorbed  by  faculties, 
lions  by  lambs.  And  we  shall  have  within  the  college  walls 
three  groups,  —  teachers,  their  pupils,  and  the  pupils  they 
have  had  before.  Thus  shall  the  teacher  lose  his  fear  of 
interference  from  without,  thus  shall  he  be  the  college  in 
the  active  sense. 

VI 

The  college  as  teacher!  The  teacher  as  critic  and  inter- 
preter! That  is  thejword  I  bring  to  you  to-day,  the  prin- 
ciple that  underlies  all  the  deliberations  of  this  our  court. 
Do  we  need  teachers,  scholars  who  stand  aside  to  criticize 
and  to  interpret  us?  Surely  we  do.  We  as  a  people  are 
embarked  upon  a  fearsome  enterprise.  We  have  the  thirst 
for  freedom  on  our  lips,  the  zest  for  justice  in  our  veins. 
Do  we  need  guidance  as  we  venture  forth?  Never  did 
people  need  it  more.  And  we  must  make  it  for  ourselves; 
freedom  accepts  no  guidance  from  outside.  We  must  put 
learning  at  the  helm  of  life.  And  who  shall  place  and  keep 


THE  COLLEGE  AS  CRITIC  83 

it  there  if  not  the  colleges?  I  dream  of  college  teachers 
who  shall  be  guides  for  all  the  thinking  of  our  people  — 
men  who  shall  watch  the  things  we  do,  shall  understand 
them  as  the  men  engaged  in  them  can  never  do,  men  whom 
their  fellows  reverence  and  trust  because  they  find  them 
intimate  with  truth  —  interpreters  and  critics  of  our  com- 
mon life.  I  would  not  have  them  run  to  every  market- 
place to  shout  their  theories;  I  would  not  have  them  claimed 
by  any  party,  sect  or  creed;  I  would  not  have  them  try 
to  do  the  active  work  which  active  men  can  do  with  greater 
skill  than  they.  But  I  would  have  them  at  the  helm  of 
life,  looking  before  to  see  the  way  men  go.  And  round  them 
here  and  there  would  gather  boys  to  study  with  them  and 
to  catch  their  spirit.  And  older  men,  knowing  their  teach- 
ing, would  come  to  talk  with  them  and  share  their  wisdom. 
Thus,  at  this  point  and  at  that,  would  be  a  college,  men 
following  a  way  of  life,  a  life  with  learning  at  the  helm. 


II 

THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  COLLEGE 


THERE  have  been  many  disputes  about  freedom.  And 
there  will  be  many  more.  It  is  a  matter  about  which 
men  feel  deeply.  It  has  therefore  been  argued  about 
more  than  it  has  been  studied.  "Shall  not  a  man  be  free  to 
think  what  bethinks  and  say  what  he  thinks?"  one  group  de- 
mands. "What  are  you  going  to  do  with  a  fellow  who  has  no 
common  sense  ? "  retorts  the  other.  And  on  the  relations  of 
Liberty  and  License,  especially  as  both  names  begin  with  Li, 
there  have  been  many  passionate  pronunciamentos. 

We, are  apparently  just  entering  on  another  phase  of  this 
old  conflict.  It  is  presented  very  commonly  in  the  head- 
lines of  our  newspapers.  "Another  professor  dismissed. 
Teaching  investigated  and  condemned.  Faculty  members 
protest  in  vain.  Trustees  firm."  The  reader  is  given  the 
impression  that  a  conflict  is  going  on  in  the  colleges,  that 
trustees  and  professors  are  arrayed  in  opposing  camps. 
It  is  understood  that  one  party  is  demanding  freedom  of 
thought  and  speech  while  the  other  is  insisting  upon  com- 
mon decency  and  common  sense.  And  further,  it  is  noted 
that  the  two  parties  find  their  demands  mutually  hostile 
and  irreconcilable.  Just  why  freedom  and  common  sense 
should  be  irreconcilable  does  not  appear  to  the  casual  ob- 
server, or  perhaps  appears  only  to  him.  And  yet  it  is  very 
easily  taken  for  granted  that  they  are.  And  so  the  issue 
is  formulated.  Trustees  and  professors  are  in  conflict 
about  freedom  of  thought  and  speech. 

Now  if  there  be  such  a  conflict  within  the  college,  it  is 

84 


THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  COLLEGE  85 

not  to  be  avoided.  It  would  be  well  to  have  it  out,  and  that 
quickly.  I  should  like,  in  this  paper,  to  contribute,  so  far 
as  I  may,  to  the  "having  it  out."  1  do  not  expect  to  end  the 
controversy.  My  purpose  is  rather  to  find  out  whether  or 
not  there  is  one,  and  if  so  what  it  is.  Especially  I  should 
like  to  know  just  what  it  is  that  the  professor  wants  and  that 
the  trustee  is  said  to  be  unwilling  he  should  have.  What  is 
academic  freedom? 

In  the  first  place,  what  kind  of  a  thing  is  it  ?  Is  it  a  right, 
or  a  duty,  or  an  obligation,  or  a  privilege,  or  a  perquisite, 
or  what  is  it?  Is  it  something  which  the  professor  wants 
for  his  own  private  satisfaction?  That  would  make  it  a 
perquisite  or  a  privilege.  And  we  should  have  the  very 
natural  question,  "Why  may  not  other  people  have  the 
same  freedom  which  the  professors  claim?"  But  the  ques- 
tion which  we  really  ask  on  this  plane  is  just  the  opposite 
one.  The  question  is,  whether  the  professor  may  have  the 
same  degree  of  freedom  as  other  men  have;  whether, 
because  of  his  peculiar  responsibilities,  he  ought  not  to  be 
specially  limited  in  thought  and  speech.  There  are,  we  all 
know,  dangers  with  professors.  There  is  always  the  danger 
that  some  one  will  take  a  professor  seriously;  and  so  it  may 
be  necessary  to  take  care  what  he  says.  And  it  is  also 
possible  that  his  thinking  may  carry  him  along  one  of  the 
roads  that  thought  travels,  that  he  may  really  get  some- 
where else;  therefore  there  may  be  need  of  prescribing 
whither  he  shall  and  shall  not  go.  These  are  dangers  which 
mark  him  off  from  the  common  run  of  men.  And  so  the 
question  on  this  level  is,  to  what  degree  the  professor  should 
be  denied  this  privilege  of  freedom  of  thought  and  speech 
which  a  democracy  normally  allows  its  citizens. 

But  freedom  as  a  privilege  is  not  fundamental.  The  duty 
or  obligation  to  be  free  is  the  essential  thing.  I  take  it 
that  the  community  is  so  related  to  the  college  and  the 
college  so  related  to  the  professor,  that  the  community 
makes  a  demand  upon  the  college  with  regard  to  the  pro- 
fessor. It  says,  "I  demand  of  you  that  for  the  sake  of  my 


86  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

welfare  you  see  to  it  that  the  study  of  my  scholars  and 
the  learning  of  my  children  be  free."  And  the  duty,  the 
obligation,  of  the  professor  is  to  the  college  just  as  the 
obligation  of  the  college  is  to  the  community.  In  order 
do  to  its  service,  he  must  be  free;  he  is  a  trickster  and  a 
fraud  if  he  is  not  free.  When  he  speaks  of  freedom,  he  is 
not  playing  with  his  own  perquisites  and  possessions;  he  is 
facing  his  master  and  the  commands  of  his  duty  are  upon 
him. 

The  essential  principle  in  the  doctrine  of  academic  freedom 
as  a  duty  may,  I  think,  be  stated  in  this  way.  Most  men, 
outside  our  institutions  of  learning,  having  the  choice  be- 
tween freedom  and  non-freedom  of  thought  and  speech, 
choose  the  privilege  of  the  latter.  They  prefer  not  to  be 
free.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  they  demand  that  the  man 
within  the  college  shall  adopt  the  former.  To  explain  this 
statement,  I  must  try  to  explain  what  colleges  are  for. 
If  we  can  understand  this,  I  think  we  may  get  a  grip  on 
academic  freedom.  May  I  therefore  try  to  describe  the 
mission  of  the  college  with  regard  to  human  opinions  and 
judgments? 

Every  one  knows,  or  may  know  if  he  stops  to  think  about 
it,  that  his  opinions,  the  judgments  which  he  believes,  are 
not  very  good,  are  not  so  true  as  they  might  be.  "Mine 
own  they  are,"  we  say,  "but  poor  things."  In  the  realm 
of  politics,  for  example,  we  all  have  opinions  and  act  upon 
them,  but  we  know  that  we  do  not  know  very  much  about 
politics,  and  further  that,  if  we  did  know  more,  we  could 
make  better  opinions.  And  the  men  who  differ  from  us, 
as  well  as  those  who  agree  with  us,  are  in  like  situation. 
They  too  are  doing  each  his  best,  and  yet  it  is  not  very 
good.  Our  judgments  upon  politics,  yours  and  mine,  are 
rather  poor  things;  they  are  not  very  true;  for  reasons  of  our 
own  we  claim  the  privilege  of  holding  opinions,  of  believing 
them,  of  acting  on  them,  even  though  we  know  that  as 
opinions  they  are  no  better  intellectually  than  are  we  who 
make  them. 


THE  FREEDOM  OF   THE  COLLEGE  87 

There  are  two  ways  in  which  this  unsatisfactoriness  of 
our  opinions  is  brought  home  to  us,  and  each  of  them  seems 
to  me  to  reveal  the  need  of  colleges  which  are  free. 

The  more  obvious  bit  of  evidence  about  the  quality  of 
our  opinions  is  that  our  neighbors  think  less  highly  of  them 
than  we  do  ourselves;  in  fact,  they  contradict  them.  And 
these  contradictions  come,  not  only  from  our  equals  in 
intelligence,  but  also  from  our  superiors.  I  may  believe 
in  Social  Cooperation,  but  my  neighbor  holds  fast  to  In- 
dividualism. And  on  the  whole  he  seems  to  be  as  good  a 
mind  as  I.  In  other  words,  I  think  that  my  opinion  is 
true,  but  just  as  good  a  mind  as  mine  thinks  it  is  not.  That 
makes  the  chances  even  that  I  am  wrong.  But  worse  and 
more  disturbing  than  our  equals  are  our  superiors,  the 
better  men  who  differ  from  us.  No  matter  what  opinion 
we  hold,  we  know  that  other  minds,  better  informed  and 
better  trained  than  ours,  can  make  a  better.  And  so, 
however  brave  a  face  we  put  on  it,  we  know  that  our  su- 
periors, the  men  whose  mental  fibre  is  stronger  and  more 
delicate,  can  think  their  way  to  better  thoughts  than  ours. 
I  feel  sure  that  this  awareness  of  our  ineptitude,  this  knowl- 
edge of  our  ignorance,  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  we  build 
colleges. 

The  second  and  more  disturbing  observation  about  our 
beliefs  is  that  of  their  connection  with  our  interests.  Here 
again,  not  in  a  conscious  way,  but  none  the  less  effectively, 
we  seem  to  have  chosen  not  to  be  free.  Men  seem  to  think 
by  classes,  and  thoughts  to  express  desires  and  needs  rather 
than  facts.  We  do  not  like  the  story  that  when  the  Con- 
stitution was  made  men  voted  in  groups  according  to  the 
bearing  of  the  votes  upon  their  holdings  or  lack  of  holdings 
in  property.  And  yet  the  story  is  told.  And  in  the  telling 
is  revealed,  not  conscious  lack  of  honesty,  not  conscious 
putting  of  private  interests  before  the  public  good,  but 
rather  a  blind  unconscious  bias  in  human  thinking.  And 
in  the  present  day  there  is  no  lack  of  illustrations.  Holders 
of  property  to-day  are  very  much  agreed  about  the  rights 


88  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

of  property.  And  laboring  men  are  on  the  whole  con- 
vinced that  labor  does  not  get  its  share  and  must  have  more. 
Germans  agree  that  Germany  must  have  her  place  out  in 
the  sun,  and  France  and  England  find  the  moral  law  de- 
manding that  they  keep  the  Germans  in  their  proper  place. 
Even  professors  sometimes  agree  —  as  to  the  interests  they 
have  in  common.  They  are  in  large  agreement  concerning 
college  presidents,  college  trustees,  and  professorial  freedom. 
They  hold  the  dogma  of  their  class,  that  members  of  the 
class  should  have  more  power.  And  when  one  leaves  his 
class  and  joins  the  presidents,  we  know  the  merry  farce  of 
changing  points  of  view,  of  widening  experience,  of  greater 
insight  into  many  things. 

I  do  not  wish  to  press  the  point  too  far.  I  am  not  saying 
that  human  beliefs  are  simply  selfish  desires  finding  expres- 
sion in  the  forms  of  thought.  The  man  who  proves  that 
human  thinking  is  "interested"  in  this  sense,  proves  that 
his  proof  is  "interested,"  and  we  should  ask  of  him  not 
whether  his  proof  is  good  or  bad,  but  what  he  hopes  to  gain 
for  himself  by  setting  up  the  proof.  Nor  am  I  taking  as 
my  own  the  current  popular  philosophy  which  scoffs  at 
"absolutes"  and  finds  the  meaning  of  truth  in  service  to 
the  actual  ends  of  actual  men.  That  doctrine  too  is  ren- 
dering doubtful  service  in  these  times  of  stress.  But  I  am 
only  saying  this  —  that  as  we  view  our  fellows  and  our- 
selves, we  find  ourselves  in  groups  according  to  our  interests, 
and  in  those  groups  we  find  common  beliefs  related  to 
those  interests.  There  is  a  bias  in  our  thinking.  We 
cannot  trust  ourselves  to  be  impartial.  To  do  our  daily 
work  we  must  be  special  in  our  points  of  view.  Uncon- 
sciously we  use  our  thoughts  as  instruments  to  further  our 
ends.  But  when  we  stop  to  think  about  it,  we  hate  the 
special  interested  point  of  view;  we  know  that  it  is  not 
true,  not  worthy  of  our  deeper  selves.  And  in  the  seeking 
for  escape  from  it,  we  find  a  second  impulse  to  the  building 
of  the  colleges,  the  colleges  which  shall  be  free. 

If  now  the  college  be  defined  in  terms  of  these  two  im- 


THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  COLLEGE  89 

pulses,  it  is  essentially,  not  accidentally,  a  place  of  freedom. 
It  is  a  place  in  which  the  human  mind  is  seeking  deliverance 
from  its  bonds  —  the  bonds  of  partial  knowledge  and  self- 
interest.  It  has  no  hope  of  fully  achieving  such  freedom, 
and  yet  this  end  defines  its  work.  Men  form  their  opinions 
from  partial  knowledge;  the  college  must  know,  so  far  as 
may  be  known,  all  that  the  human  mind  has  thought  and 
learned  which  bears  on  these  opinions.  Men  fashion  their 
thoughts  according  as  their  interests  and  activities  have 
molded  and  shaped  their  minds;  the  college  may  have  no 
special  interests  shaping  it.  It  must  in  this  sense  stand 
apart,  viewing  all  interests  of  men  alike  with  equal  eye,  and 
measuring  each  in  terms  of  every  other  and  the  whole.  It 
is  a  place  of  knowledge  and  of  criticism. 

What  then  is  academic  freedom?  It  is,  it  seems  to  me, 
the  very  quality  of  a  college.  The  question  whether  or  not 
a  college  is  free  is  meaningless.  An  institution  which  is  not 
intellectually  free  is  not  a  college,  whatever  else  it  be. 
States  may  be  servants  of  partial  insights  and  partial  in- 
terests, and  so  may  factories  and  corporations,  and  even 
schools  of  medicine;  but  not  so  colleges.  A  college  is  our 
social  and  individual  striving  to  escape  the  bonds  which  the 
world's  work  would  fix  upon  us.  It  is  the  search  for  free- 
dom from  ourselves 

II 

The  actual  carrying  on  of  the  college  enterprise  brings 
one  to  many  rather  puzzling  problems.  Even  for  an 
individual  self-criticism  is  not  an  easy  task.  To  do  two 
things  at  once  —  to  go  about  one's  work,  planning  and 
acting  as  if  one's  thoughts  were  true,  and  yet  to  know  and 
act  as  if  one's  thoughts  were  wrong  and  partial  —  to  do 
both  things  at  once  is  hard  for  busy,  single-minded  men. 
It  is  no  wonder  that  we  fail.  But  it  is  even  harder  for  an 
institution  like  a  college  to  do  the  task.  A  college  has  so 
many  independent  parts  which  do  not  know  each  other, 
which  take  themselves  for  granted,  which  have  not  stopped 


90  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

to  think  about  themselves,  or  other  parts,  or  even  the 
college  as  a  whole.  Trustees,  professors,  presidents,  de- 
partments, graduates,  students,  donors,  outside  world  are 
all  factors  in  the  situation.  Each  has  its  share  in  making 
for  our  people  knowledge  and  self-criticism.  And  they 
have  hardly  begun  to  criticize,  to  understand  themselves, 
to  realize  the  work  they  have  to  do. 

But  worse  than  either  of  these  difficulties  is  the  fact  that, 
though  the  college  has  compounded  its  medicines  to  cure 
the  public  mind,  the  patient  does  not  come  for  treatment; 
he  does  not  know  that  he  is  ill.  We  say  that  colleges  are 
built  because  men  know  their  ignorance,  that  is,  the  igno- 
rance of  their  fellows,  and  wish  to  cure  it.  But  motives 
are  not  always  clear,  even  to  those  who  act  on  them.  And  I 
am  sure  that,  in  the  large,  our  public  does  not  keenly  feel 
the  need  of  criticism;  on  the  other  hand,  I  am  not  sure 
that,  if  it  did,  the  college  is  the  doctor  whom  it  could  choose 
for  diagnosis  and  prescription. 

What  shall  we  do  to  lure  the  patient,  to  get  some  living 
forms  on  which  to  practice  our  profession  ?  I  see  no  other 
way  except  to  hang  our  shingle  out  and  let  it  swing  in  public 
places.  Perhaps  to  change  the  figure  would  give  it  more 
attractiveness.  "Clearing  House  for  Opinions;  Discount 
on  Popular  Prejudices;  Foreign  Exchange!"  And  if  we 
catch  a  patient,  we  must  make  it  clear  to  him  that  he  is  ill, 
yes,  very  ill,  and  that  the  social  mind  is  ill  also,  and  all  his 
friends.  I  fear  the  method  is  not  quite  professional.  But 
something  must  be  done  to  make  people  understand  that 
colleges  are  ready  to  do  a  piece  of  work,  and  that  the  work 
is  sorely  needed  in  our  country  and  by  our  generation. 

Assuming  then  that  we  have  caught  a  patient,  may  I 
proceed  to  tell  him  just  what  our  methods  are  and  what 
they  are  not,  to  arouse  his  hopes,  excite  his  fears,  especially 
to  let  him  know  what  college  freedom  is? 

And  first,  let  it  be  understood,  the  college  is  not  simply 
a  school  for  boys.  It  is  a  place  to  which  boys  should  go 
because  the  teachers  of  men  are  to  be  found  there,  scholars 


THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  COLLEGE  91 

whom  men  respect  and  honor  as  their  guides  and  leaders. 
No  man  who  cannot  lead  his  peers  is  fit  to  teach  the  younger 
generation.  The  education  of  a  boy  consists  in  coming 
into  active  contact  with  a  group  of  minds  which  have  com- 
mand of  human  thinking;  he  learns  by  feeling  how  they 
think,  and  by  imitating  them. 

Again,  the  college  has  no  list  of  dogmas  or  doctrines 
which  it  seeks  to  teach.  There  is  no  catalogue  of  things 
to  be  believed,  nor  any  list  of  problems  which  should  not 
be  discussed.  I  have  heard  the  suggestion  made  that 
certain  matters  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  "subjects  of 
reasonable  controversy."  I  am  sure  that  for  a  college  no 
such  prohibition  can  be  made.  I  do  not  mean  that  every 
problem  of  human  life  will  be  discussed  by  every  student 
all  the  time.  There  must  be  pedagogic  common  sense  in 
choosing  things  to  think  about.  But  are  there  matters 
which  are  not  "subjects  of  reasonable  controversy"?  I 
know  no  other  test  than  this  —  any  matter  concerning 
which  reasonable  men  differ  is  a  subject  of  reasonable  con- 
troversy. And  if  there  be  such  reasonable  disagreements, 
young  minds  should  know  about  them  in  proper  time. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  there  are  still  other  subjects  on 
which  all  men  have  the  same  opinions,  there  can  be  little 
harm  in  letting  younger  people  know  of  these  agreements. 
The  only  genuine  pedagogic  sin  I  know  is  that  of  dragging 
our  students  by  the  nose  to  preconceived  conclusions, 
blinding  their  eyes  to  paths  that  lead  on  this  side  or  on  that 
toward  truth,  and  yet  pretending  that  we  are  leading  them 
into  the  ways  of  human  thought.  Such  teaching  is  not 
honest;  and  it  will  find  its  own  reward  for  those  who  give 
as  well  as  those  who  take  it. 

I  do  not  mean  that  there  is  no  place  for  schools  which 
choose  to  teach  some  special  doctrines  which  they  think 
important.  Such  schools  are  different  from  free  colleges, 
not  in  kind  but  only  in  degree.  No  college,  however  free, 
can  escape  the  prepossessions  of  its  background,  the  mental 
attitude  from  which  it  springs.  But  in  the  schools  of 


92  THE   LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

which  I  speak,  some  special  conscious  limitations  are  taken 
on;  the  school  commits  itself  to  teaching  this  or  that  as 
true.  Such  schools  must  first  of  all  try  to  be  fair  to  doc- 
trines other  than  their  own.  But  they  must  also  deal 
honestly  with  those  for  whose  support  they  ask.  They 
have  no  right  to  put  a  label  on  and  then  to  act  and  teach 
as  if  the  label  did  not  mark  them  off  from  others;  that  is 
what  honest  labels  do. 

Does  the  receiving  of  gifts  from  private  donors  or  public 
governments  destroy  or  hamper  the  freedom  of  the  college  ? 
Yes,  in  some  degree.  Taking  the  college  world  at  large, 
such  influences  are  subtly,  or  not  so  subtly,  felt.  But 
there  is  no  essential  reason  why  they  should  be  present. 
If  they  are,  some  one  has  failed  to  understand  his  task 
and  hence  to  do  it.  No  college,  clearly  conceived  and 
honestly  administered,  would  take  a  gift  to  which  such 
influence  was  attached.  No  college  is  for  sale,  and  nothing 
that  is  for  sale,  subtly  or  obviously,  can  be  a  college. 

I  think  that  the  Association  of  University  Professors, 
fine  as  it  is  in  purpose,  has  tended  to  increase  misappre- 
hension at  this  point.  The  Association  in  its  proposals 
and  discussions  has  sundered  the  college  in  two.  It  has 
opposed  the  teachers  and  the  administrators.  Trustees 
and  presidents,  it  seems  to  say,  must  further  the  material 
interests  of  the  college,  must  pay  the  bills,  and  find  the 
wherewithal  to  pay  them.  Professors,  on  the  other  hand, 
have  no  concern  with  interests  like  these;  they  are  the 
scholars  and  teachers,  interested  in  the  truth.  Professors 
are  free,  but  trustees  and  presidents  —  well,  they  must 
get  the  money,  so  perhaps  they  must  give  up  some  measure 
of  their  freedom.  What  does  this  mean? 

It  sometimes  seems  as  if  professors  said,  "Let  presidents 
and  trustees  get  money  as  they  can;  let  them  make  promises 
to  donors  or  legislators  if  need  be;  but  we  will  see  that  the 
promises  they  give  are  broken;  no  man  can  influence  us." 
Professors  free;  trustees  and  presidents  slaves,  that  seems 
to  be  the  doctrine.  But  surely  such  a  doctrine  is  false 


THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  COLLEGE  93 

and  hateful.  No  college  can  live  half-slave  and  yet  half- 
free.  Professors  have  no  right  to  freedom  unless  the  college 
as  a  whole  is  free.  The  freedom  of  professors  is  a  myth 
unless  it  lives  within  the  freedom  of  the  college. 

I  think  that  in  the  large,  with  very  little  reservation,  the 
colleges  are  free,  trustees  and  presidents  as  well  as  teachers. 
Donors  and  legislators  are  eager  to  give  to  institutions  which 
no  man  can  buy;  that  is  their  reason  for  giving.  But 
public  confidence  in  such  freedorn  is  not  so  easy  to  secure. 
Men  carry  the  notions  of  property  and  ownership  from 
other  fields  into  the  college  field;  they  make  a  gift  into 
a  bargain,  and  so  they  fail  to  understand.  The  college 
must  explain  itself,  must  make  its  friends,  must  make  its 
friends  and  foes  alike  perceive  that  it  is  one  in  purpose; 
honest  in  dealings,  seeking  to  free  men  from  ignorance 
and  self-interest,  seeking  to  make  for  men  knowledge  and 
self-criticism.  It  has  no  other  purpose  in  any  part  or 
fragment  of  its  being. 

A  harder  relationship  to  understand  is  that  of  professors 
and  propaganda.  How  shall  men  express  opinions  within 
the  classroom  or  outside,  and  yet  not  make  the  college  seem 
to  be  a  partisan  in  public  disputes.  There  are  two  very 
different  ways  in  which  it  might  be  done.  We  might 
arrange  that  no  professor  should  be  a  partisan  on  any 
public  issue;  he  must  remain  a  scholar,  seeing  the  principles 
beneath  the  popular  disputes,  impartially  making  all  sides 
clear,  and  yet  not  advocating  any  one  of  them.  Or  on  the 
other  hand,  we  might  make  up  a  college  faculty  of  many 
advocates,  at  least  one  advocate  for  every  important  line 
of  popular  thought  and  impulse,  trusting  to  each  to  push 
his  cause  as  strongly  as  he  can.  In  either  case,  the  college 
as  a  whole  would  remain  free  and  uncommitted.  Which  is 
the  better  plan  ?  I  wonder  if  we  need  to  choose  between 
them. 

No  one  who  loves  a  college  can  fail  to  feel  the  attraction 
of  the  former  plan.  We  like  to  think  of  scholars  as  standing 
apart  from  common  quarrels,  as  looking  deeper  into  life 


94  THE   LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

than  common  men,  as  finding  the  principles  that  underlie 
all  common  controversies.  And  so  they  do,  and  ought  to 
do.  And  yet  they  do  not  by  such  study  escape  men's 
disagreements;  the  superficial  quarrels  reappear  down  in 
the  lower  levels  of  our  thought;  scholars  are  not  agreed 
regarding  the  issues  of  human  life.  They  have  their  points 
of  view,  their  attitudes  of  mind,  their  working  theories, 
their  own  beliefs.  Shall  they  be  advocates  of  those  beliefs? 
They  cannot  help  it.  But  on  the  other  hand,  are  there  no 
limits  to  the  forms  their  partisanship  may  take?  I  think 
there  are.  A  man  who  advocates  a  view  as  if  there  were  no 
other  views,  who  finds  the  total  truth  in  some  mere  frag- 
ment of  an  insight  which  has  come  to  him,  who  sees  and 
formulates  no  underlying  principles  beneath  the  strife  of 
parties,  is  no  proper  college  teacher.  A  college  has  a  right 
to  expect  that  every  one  who  serves  its  cause,  whatever 
else  he  do,  shall  keep  its  faith,  its  partial  insight  if  you 
like,  that  truth  is  broader  than  a  creed  and  deeper  than 
the  theories  of  any  sect  or  class. 

Shall  college  teachers  be  advocates  or  critics?  I  do  not 
think  we  are  ready  to  choose  as  yet.  We  want  both  types 
and  are  not  ready  to  let  either  go.  Most  of  our  men  prefer 
the  impartial  role;  some  have  the  zeal  of  advocates.  And 
if  the  scholars  keep  themselves  alive  to  human  situations, 
if  partisans  hold  fast  to  academic  faith,  we  need  not 
interfere.  We  should  not  like  to  see  our  "ninety-three 
professors"  declaring  that  all  our  acts  are  right  —  right 
beyond  question;  nor  do  we  wish  our  scholars  to  retire 
to  quiet  places,  reflecting  sadly  on  the  weaknesses  of  fellow 
men.  One  thing  we  know  —  whatever  individual  professors 
do  or  think,  the  college  must  be  impartial;  it  must  not  be  an 
advocate;  it  must  urge  no  cause  but  its  own,  the  cause  of 
knowledge  and  self-criticism. 

There  are,  however,  two  or  three  remarks  which  may  be 
made  upon  the  issue  just  considered. 

Should  we,  in  choosing  teachers,  take  account  of  their 
opinions?  If  we  are  well  enough  acquainted  with  their 


THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  COLLEGE  95 

work  to  pass  on  their  appointments,  we  cannot  well  help 
knowing  what  they  think.  And  yet  we  must  not  take 
account  of  it.  We  might,  if  we  had  found  ourselves  by 
blind  unconscious  preference  appointing  men  of  our  own 
points  of  view,  seek  out  opponents  of  ourselves  to  keep  the 
balance.  But  on  no  other  ground  could  we  be  justified  in 
choosing  a  man  because  of  his  beliefs. 

May  teachers  be  dismissed  because  they  hold  and  ad- 
vocate this  view  or  that?  Such  action  would  contravene 
the  very  spirit  and  purpose  of  a  college.  Professors  must 
be  good  men,  must  study  well,  and  teach  successfully. 
If  these  requirements  are  met,  no  question  can  be  raised 
regarding  their  opinions.  The  college  has  no  fear  of  any 
opinions.  It  takes  them  all  and  judges  them.  If  this  be 
true,  the  tenure  of  the  teacher  is  not  that  of  one  who  is 
paid  to  work  as  he  is  told,  who  may  be  sent  away  if  those 
who  pay  him  do  not  like  the  work  he  does.  His  tenure  is 
rather  that  of  the  judge  who,  by  the  very  nature  of  the 
task  assigned  him,  is  placed  beyond  control  or  punishment 
by  those  on  whom  his  judgment  must  be  made. 

I  think  there  is  a  case  against  the  allowing  of  college 
presidents  to  play  the  role  of  public  advocate.  So  far  as 
teachers  are  concerned,  safety  is  found  in  numbers.  No 
one  of  them  can  claim  to  represent  the  college  as  a  whole. 
Whatever  one  of  them  may  say,  a  dozen  of  his  fellows  will 
be  found  to  take  another  point  of  view.  But  presidents 
are  wont  to  speak  each  for  his  college.  Nothing  about  them 
is  more  obvious  than  just  their  singularity.  And  when  a 
president  takes  his  place  in  sect  or  party  he  takes  the  college 
with  him  as  no  professor  can.  I  have  no  doubt  that  in  the 
public  mind  one  president,  engaging  in  propaganda  as  a 
partisan,  can  do  more  harm  in  shaking  confidence  in  aca- 
demic fairness  and  impartiality  than  could  a  hundred 
teachers  if  they  should  storm  and  rave  in  every  sect  and 
party  that  the  country  knows.  And  if  it  should  appear 
that,  on  the  whole,  the  college  presidents  are  very  much 
alike  in  mental  attitude,  are  in  most  cases  committed  to 


96  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

a  single  point  of  view  regarding  human  problems,  I  think 
that  very  rightly  the  colleges  would  fail  of  influence  upon 
the  public  mind,  would  lose  the  public  confidence  on  which 
the  doing  of  their  work  depends. 


in 

How  shall  we  win  and  keep  that  confidence?  That  is 
the  urgent  problem  for  us  and  for  the  people  whom  we 
serve.  How  shall  we  teach  unless  the  people  listen?  How 
shall  they  listen  unless  they  know  that  we  can  teach  and 
that  we  will? 

Unless  a  people  find,  in  colleges  or  elsewhere,  some  place 
of  criticism,  some  place  where  truth  is  sought,  where 
thought  is  free,  there  is  no  hope  for  freedom  of  the  people. 

The  college  must  teach,  and,  first  of  all,  must  make  the 
people  understand  what  teaching  is.  How  shall  we  let 
them  know  that  we  are  building  knowledge  for  their  use, 
that  we  are  serving  every  interest  that  they  have  and  yet 
are  slaves  to  none  of  them,  that  we  will  listen  to  every 
thought  they  bring  and  yet  will  weigh  and  value  them  with 
thoughts  of  other  men  in  mind  ? 

There  is  no  other  way  than  this:  to  study  and  to  teach. 
And  teaching  is  the  attempt  to  make  men  free. 

Physician,  heal  thyself! 


Ill 

STUDENT  ACTIVITIES  IN  THE  COLLEGE 

AS  I  survey  the  program  of  yesterday  afternoon  and 
this  morning  my  mind  is  caught  by  the  figure  of  the 
cookery  or  bakeshop.  A  cook  from  foreign  parts  has 
been  brought  in  to  concoct  for  us  some  delicious  dish,  pastry, 
pudding,  or  pie.  And  those  of  us  who  precede  him  on  the  pro- 
gram are  simply  bringing  out  from  the  pantry  the  ingredients 
which  he  requires.  Mr.  Eliot  came  laden  with  culture, 
Mr.  Thorndike  with  discipline;  Mr.  Hocking  set  forth  the 
specific  purpose,  and  to-day  Mr.  Stearns  has  presented 
athletics  for  mingling  in  the  bowl.  It  is  with  much  fear 
and  trembling  that  I  present  my  own  bundle,  the  Student 
Activities.  I  am  aware  that  they  are  regarded  by  many 
cooks  of  college  theory  as  spoiling  the  flavor  of  the  edu- 
cational food.  Or  at  the  best  they  are  only  a  frosting 
for  the  cake,  a  sauce  for  the  pudding,  and  I  sadly  fear  that 
this  imported  cook  may  have  sauces  and  frostings  of  his 
own  for  the  sake  of  which  he  may  reject  with  scorn  the 
offering  I  have  been  commissioned  to  bring. 

But  now  as  I  make  my  contribution  to  the  program,  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  should  be  done,  not  with  apology  and 
timid  protestation,  but  rather  with  confidence,  with  the 
assured  conviction  that  no  cake  or  pudding  can  be  worth 
the  eating  unless  it  have  this  last  delicate  touch  of  per- 
fection which  my  condiment  will  give.  May  I  confess  that 
until  I  found  myself  obliged  to  write  this  paper  on  Student 
Actitivies,  I  had  not  realized  how  important,  how  essential 
they  are.  Is  it  not  true  in  general  that  one  of  the  best 
ways  of  discovering  that  a  cause  is  important,  or  a  truth 
significant,  is  to  make  a  speech  about  it?  Usually  one 

97 


98  THE   LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

makes  a  speech  not  because  he  chooses  to  do  so,  but  be- 
cause he  is  invited  to  do  so.  And  when  the  speech  has  to  be 
prepared  and  delivered  the  sheer  necessities  of  the  case 
demand  that  one  believe  that  what  he  says  is  worth  saying, 
no  matter  what  it  may  turn  out  to  be.  In  order  to  make 
this  speech  at  all  I  must  believe  that  student  activities  have 
a  place  in  the  life  of  the  college  community,  and  as  I  seek 
to  determine  that  place  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  will  seem 
more  and  more  important  and  significant. 


To  begin,  then,  I  am  convinced,  as  I  write  this  paper, 
that  in  any  ideal  college,  student  activities  are  of  funda- 
mental importance  and  that  any  one  who  would  cook  up 
a  college  without  them  need  hope  to  find  little  appreciation 
of  his  wares.  I  can  say  this  with  freedom  and  irrespon- 
sibility to-day  because  mine  is  not  the  task  of  selecting  or 
compounding  the  elements.  I  have  an  article  to  sell  and 
I  will  sing  its  praises  long  and  loud.  It  is  for  the  cook  to 
decide  whether  or  not  he  will  have  it  in  the  dish  and  if  he 
takes  it  in,  to  give  it  proper  mingling  with  the  other  stuffs 
which  other  vendors  have  brought  in. 

The  name  "student  activities"  is  intended,  I  presume, 
to  express  a  difference  or  contrast.  The  name  marks  them 
off  from  the  studies,  those  elements  of  the  college  life  which, 
by  implication,  are  either  not  student  affairs  or  not  activi- 
ties. I  fear  that  our  teachers  in  the  colleges  do  not  like  the 
implication.  We  do  not  like  to  have  studies  regarded  as 
peculiarly  belonging  to  the  Faculty,  nor,  on  the  other  hand, 
do  we  wish  them  degraded  to  the  realm  of  the  mere  pas- 
sivities. And  so  the  very  name  itself  arouses  antagonism. 
It  suggests  that  here  is  a  feature  of  the  college  life  which  does 
not  mix  very  smoothly  with  the  others.  It  is  not  a  good 
label  if  one  would  recommend  his  wares  to  college  teachers 
who  are  eagerly  striving  to  tempt  the  intellectual  appetities 
of  the  boys  entrusted  to  their  charge. 

If  we  include  under  the  phrase  "student  activities  apart 


STUDENT  ACTIVITIES  IN  THE  COLLEGE      99 

from  athletics"  such  enterprises  as  debating,  dramatics, 
music,  newspapers,  literary  magazines,  philanthropic  and 
religious  organizations,  as  well  as  social  functions  of  various 
types,  one  may  express  a  very  common  faculty  point  of 
view  concerning  them  in  the  words,  "The  less  said  about 
them  the  better."  And  with  that  judgment  properly 
interpreted,  I  am  inclined  to  agree.  But  I  should  person- 
ally not  intend  to  minimize  the  importance  of  such  activi- 
ties. It  is  not  a  safe  generalization  to  declare  that  phases 
of  human  life  are  important  in  direct  ratio  to  the  degree 
to  which  they  are  publicly  talked  about.  It  is  rather 
assumed  amongst  us  that  many  very  elemental  and  signifi- 
cant features  of  our  common  life  are  not  to  be  talked  about 
at  all  —  they  are  to  be  taken  for  granted,  to  be  accepted  as 
given  in  the  very  nature  of  things.  And  it  is  just  this  "  given- 
ness,"  this  inevitableness  of  "student  activities"  which 
should  first  of  all  be  recognized  as  we  approach  them. 
We  choose  to  bring  boys  together  into  social  groups  in 
order  that  we  may  teach  them,  may  train  their  minds,  may 
furnish  them  with  information.  But  it  is  an  inevitable 
incident  of  such  a  process  that  the  boys  should  find  them- 
selves together  and  should  at  once  engage  in  common 
activities  which  seem  to  them  attractive  and  at  least  enter- 
taining. We  keep  them  busy  or  try  to  do  so  five  or  six  or 
seven  hours  a  day;  with  due  allowance  for  the  separation 
of  sleep,  they  have  many  more  hours  than  these  to  spend 
together  in  enterprises  of  their  own  choosing.  We  did 
not  bring  them  together  for  the  sake  of  these  activities, 
but  from  our  bringing  them  together,  these  activities  follow. 
They  are,  as  it  were,  a  necessary  accident  of  the  teaching 
process.  Whether  we  will  or  not,  there  they  are  and  there 
they  will  remain  in  some  form  or  other  so  long  as  boys  are 
brought  together  in  the  common  life  of  a  college  campus. 
And  yet,  in  the  presence  of  these  inevitable  accidents 
of  our  central  purpose  many  of  our  teachers  grudgingly 
acknowledge  their  presence,  but,  resenting  it,  they  say, 
"Let  them  alone,  the  less  said  about  them  the  better." 


ioo  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

Now  if  this  attitude  were  not  born  in  resentment,  I 
should  find  it  very  congenial.  The  conclusion  which  it 
states  seems  to  me  excellent,  even  though  the  reasoning 
which  leads  to  it  is  atrocious.  The  truth  is  that  we  talk 
too  much  about  student  activities,  meddle  with  them  too 
much,  and  legislate  about  them  too  much.  And  I  say 
this  not  because  they  are  bad,  but  because  they  are  too 
good  to  be  spoiled  by  our  clumsy  interferences;  not  because 
I  am  opposed  to  them,  but  because  I  should  like  to  see  them 
freely  develop  and  grow  as  the  spontaneous  activities  of 
the  boys  whose  growth  and  development  is  our  chief  con- 
cern. To  tamper  with  them  seems  to  me  like  tampering 
with  one's  complexion.  In  one  sphere  at  least  we  are  sure 
that  the  improvement  of  the  general  health  gives  better 
permanent  results  for  the  complexion  than  temporary 
tampering,  however  satisfying  for  the  moment.  My  im- 
pression is  that  the  same  principle  holds  good  in  the  beauti- 
fication  of  colleges;  make  them  strong  and  healthy  and  the 
activities  will  take  care  of  themselves. 


II 

But  whether  our  ignoring  of  student  activities  be  due  to 
hatred  or  to  love,  there  are  times  when  even  the  most 
abstract  teacher  is  startled  into  recognition  of  them.  Last 
Sunday  evening  I  heard  the  Dean  of  one  of  our  great  law 
schools  tell  about  the  work  of  his  school.  And  almost  his 
first  remark  was,  "You  will  not  find  any  'activities'  at  the 
law  school;  we  give  a  man  enough  to  do  for  all  the  time  he 
can  give  to  activity."  And  with  his  words,  there  flashed 
across  my  mind  the  vision  of  a  liberal  college  without 
outside  activities.  What  would  it  be  like  to  teach  liberal 
studies  to  a  group  of  students  who  should  give  all  their 
time  to  their  studies,  whose  work  should  be  their  play, 
whose  time  should  be  wholly  at  our  command?  I  think 
I  have  still  enough  of  the  spirit  of  the  teacher  to  thrill  at 
that  vision.  But  as  I  saw  it  and  reflected  on  it,  there  came 


9TATIT  TI/.'.- 
SANTA    O\.:t>. 


STUDENT  ACTIVITIES  IN   THE  COLLEGE    101 

to  mind  those  terrible  words  of  Newman  in  which  he  con- 
trasts the  little  we  can  do  for  the  student  with  the  much 
that  he  can  do  for  himself. 

"I  protest  to  you,  Gentlemen,  that  if  I  had  to  choose 
between  a  so-called  University,  which  dispensed  with  resi- 
dence and  tutorial  superintendence,  and  gave  its  degrees 
to  any  person  who  passed  an  examination  in  a  wide  range 
of  subjects,  and  a  University  which  had  no  professors  or 
examinations  at  all,  but  merely  brought  a  number  of  young 
men  together  for  three  or  four  years,  and  then  sent  them 
away  as  the  University  of  Oxford  is  said  to  have  done  some 
sixty  years  since,  if  I  were  asked  which  of  these  two  methods 
was  the  better  discipline  of  the  intellect,  —  mind,  I  do  not 
say  which  is  morally  the  better,  for  it  is  plain  that  compul- 
sory study  must  be  a  good  and  idleness  an  intolerable 
mischief,  —  but  if  I  must  determine  which  of  the  two  courses 
was  the  more  successful  in  training,  molding,  enlarging 
the  mind,  which  sent  out  men  the  more  fitted  for  their 
secular  duties,  which  produced  better  public  men,  men  of 
the  world,  men  whose  names  would  descend  to  posterity, 
I  have  no  hesitation  in  giving  the  preference  to  that  Uni- 
versity which  did  nothing,  over  that  which  exacted  of  its 
members  an  acquaintance  with  every  science  under  the 
sun. 

"How  is  this  to  be  explained?  I  suppose  as  follows: 
When  a  multitude  of  young  men,  keen,  open-hearted, 
sympathetic,  and  observant,  as  young  men  are,  come 
together  and  freely  mix  with  each  other,  they  are  sure  to 
learn  one  from  another,  even  if  there  be  no  one  to  teach 
them;  the  conversation  of  all  is  a  series  of  lectures  to  each, 
and  they  gain  for  themselves  new  ideas  and  views,  fresh 
matter  of  thought,  and  distinct  principles  for  judging  and 
acting,  day  by  day." 

Now  with  these  words  of  Newman  ringing  in  our  ears, 
let  us  state  and  answer  a  fair  question,  "Would  you,  if  you 
could,  free  an  undergraduate  college  from  its  activities?" 
My  own  answer  is  flatly  in  the  negative.  I  believe  that 


102  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

whatever  a  liberal  college  may  be  with  them,  without  them 
it  would  be  a  sorry  place  in  which  to  live.  And  for  this 
conclusion  there  are  at  least  two  reasons.  First,  I  am 
convinced  that  the  complete  absorption  of  the  student  in 
his  studies  would  not  in  most  cases  give  the  best  kind  of 
college  training.  Not  only  are  we  trying  to  give  college 
boys  acquaintance  with  a  great  body  of  knowledge;  more 
important  than  this,  they  must  also  acquire  understanding, 
interpretation  of  what  they  are  learning,  reconstruction  of 
what  they  have  known.  And  for  this  process  there  is  need 
of  leisure,  of  deliberation  and  contemplation,  of  a  certain 
quiet  waiting  for  sub-conscious  processes  to  do  their  part. 
These  results  cannot  be  achieved  merely  by  digging  and 
grinding.  In  addition  to  the  work  there  must  be  the 
leisure;  the  two  must  be  combined  if  the  fruits  of  culture 
and  intelligence  are  to  be  reached.  Again,  if  we  view 
college  life  fairly,  we  dare  not  fail  to  take  account  of  the 
constantly  repeated  statement  of  graduates  that  they  count 
certain  "activities"  as  having  been  of  far  greater  educational 
value  than  the  studies  given  and  taken  in  the  classroom. 
I  am  sure  that  this  statement  contains  more  of  falsity  than 
of  truth.  But  there  is  a  truth  in  it,  and  it  behooves  us  to 
isolate  it  and  look  it  squarely  in  the  face.  As  I  look  back 
on  my  own  experience  of  teaching  and  disciplining,  I  seem 
to  see  what  these  graduates  mean.  I  see  it  most  clearly 
when  I  try  to  single  out  from  the  long  line  of  students  some 
one  group  which  shall  stand  forth  as  intellectually  the  best 
—  best  in  college  work  and  best  in  promise  of  future  in- 
tellectual achievement.  Much  as  I  should  like  to  do  so, 
I  cannot  draw  the  line  round  my  own  favorite  students 
in  philosophy,  nor  the  leaders  in  mathematics,  nor  those 
successful  in  biology;  nor  could  I  fairly  award  the  palm 
to  the  Phi  Beta  Kappa  men  who  have  excelled  in  all  their 
subjects.  It  seems  to  me  that  stronger  than  any  other 
group,  tougher  in  intellectual  fiber,  keener  in  intellectual 
interest,  better  equipped  to  battle  with  coming  problems, 
are  the  college  debaters  —  the  boys  who,  apart  from  their 


STUDENT  ACTIVITIES  IN  THE  COLLEGE    103 

regular  studies,  band  themselves  together  for  intellectual 
controversy  with  each  other  and  with  their  friends  in  other 
colleges.  I  am  not  concerned  to  argue  here  the  pros  and 
cons  of  intercollegiate  debate.  It  has  its  defects  as  well 
as  its  virtues.  But  if  it  be  true  that  in  this  activity  many 
of  our  best  minds  find  their  most  congenial  occupation  and 
are  furthered  in  intellectual  growth  rather  than  hindered 
in  it,  here  is  a  challenge  which  we  cannot  fail  to  meet  in 
the  administration  of  college  life  and  studies.  And  in 
some  measure,  though  in  different  forms,  what  is  true  of 
debating  holds  true  of  dramatics,  of  writing,  of  music, 
and  the  other  activities.  When  boys  form  their  clubs  or 
"crowds"  for  the  spontaneous,  enthusiastic  pursuit  of  some 
chosen  ideal,  they  gain  from  it  a  power,  a  liveliness  of  in- 
terest which  can  never  be  gained  where  that  spontaneity  is 
lacking. 

But  now  I  shall  be  asked:  Would  you  substitute  these 
activities  for  the  studies  —  give  up  the  classroom  for  the 
lounging  room  and  the  Union?  Of  course  not.  The  very 
excellence  of  these  activities  is  that  fundamentally  they 
are  the  fruits  of  the  classroom.  But  the  point  is  that  by 
these  fruits  the  work  of  the  classroom  shall  be  known. 
We  need  not  forget  that  these  activities  are  only  accidental 
and  that  the  real  values  lie  in  the  studies  and  the  teaching. 
But  none  the  less  it  is  true  that  these  activities  reveal  to 
us,  far  better  than  any  examinations  can  do,  the  success 
or  failure  of  the  classroom  itself.  They  are,  as  it  were, 
mirrors  in  which  we  can  see  ourselves  and  our  work.  If 
we  want  to  know  the  effect  of  what  we  are  doing  in  the 
classroom,  let  us  look  to  see  what  the  students  are  doing 
outside  of  it  when  they  are  free  to  follow  their  own  desires. 
If  they  do  not,  on  their  own  initiative,  carry  on  activities 
springing  out  of  their  studies,  then  you  may  count  on  it 
that  however  well  the  tests  are  met  the  studies  are  of  little 
value.  Show  me  a  college  in  which  literature  is  taught 
but  in  which  the  boys  do  not  band  together  to  read  and 
write  and  criticise,  in  which  they  do  not  yearn  to  be  them- 


104  rHE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

selves  "literary."  However  well  literature  may  be  taught 
in  that  college  it  is  not  well  learned.  What  would  you  say 
of  the  teaching  of  philosophy  which  did  not  send  boys  off 
into  quarrelling,  rending,  puzzling  groups,  determined  each 
to  give  to  his  fellows  the  solutions  of  the  problems  that 
have  baffled  human  thinking?  What  will  you  say  of  the 
teaching  of  history,  economics,  or  social  science  which  ends 
in  the  passive  appropriation  of  a  book?  Surely  if  it  is 
vital,  you  will  find  the  young  men  stimulated  by  it  eagerly 
re-forming  and  re-shaping  in  idea  the  society  about  them 
and  perhaps  going  out  to  do  some  work  to  bring  their  ideas 
to  fulfilment.  And  if  in  these  and  other  cases  it  does  appear 
that  the  studies  in  the  classroom  have  no  outside  effect, 
lead  to  no  outside  activities,  what  expectation  can  you 
have  that  they  will  lead  to  activity  after  the  college  days 
are  done?  If  studies  do  not  stimulate  to  spontaneous  free 
outside  activities,  if  they  are  merely  the  learning  of  lessons 
and  giving  them  back,  then  the  results  of  our  training  are 
pitifully  small;  we  may  send  out  good,  well-meaning  boys, 
who  will  do  what  they  are  told  and  refrain  from  doing 
anything  else,  but  we  shall  not  send  out  men  of  intellectual 
power  and  grip  who  are  able  to  live  for  themselves  the  life 
which  the  intellect  opens  before  them. 

in 

What,  then,  in  a  word,  should  be  our  attitude  toward 
these  activities?  I  think  that,  without  officially  looking 
at  them,  we  should  be  forever  watching  them  as  the  mariner 
watches  his  barometer  when  the  waves  are  high.  And  we 
must  see  to  it  that  the  classroom  dominates  the  activities, 
making  them  what  they  ought  to  be.  And  how  is  that  to 
be  done?  Can  it  be  done  by  legislating  out  of  the  college 
all  activities  not  in  harmony  with  the  classroom?  I  fear 
that  very  little  can  be  accomplished  in  that  way.  The  only 
real  way  to  dominate  the  activities  is  to  dominate  the  men 
who  are  in  them.  In  a  college  where  the  teacher  masters 
the  mind  and  imagination  of  the  pupil,  there  will  be  little 


STUDENT  ACTIVITIES  IN  THE  COLLEGE    105 

trouble  about  harmful  activities.  If  teachers  are  mere 
taskmasters,  assigning  lessons  and  seeing  that  they  are  done, 
they  need  not  expect  the  boy  to  do  them  over  again  a  second 
time  just  for  the  love  of  the  task.  When  the  cat's  away 
the  mice  will  play,  and  they  very  seldom  play  at  calling 
the  cat  to  come  back  so  that  they  may  be  chased  and 
terrified  again.  A  college  is  a  place  where  work  should  be 
and  must  be  done,  but  a  liberal  college  in  which  the  student 
activities  are  simply  reactions  from  the  studies,  ways  of 
escape  from  the  dreary  grind  —  such  an  institution  is  not  a 
college  at  all.  If  we  do  not  succeed  in  making  boys  want  to 
do  the  things  which  we  deem  worth  doing,  then  we  may  be 
good  drill  masters,  but  we  are  not  good  teachers,  and  we 
have  no  proper  place  in  a  college  of  liberal  culture. 

But  I  know  that  I  shall  be  accused  of  talking  in  vague 
generalities  and  of  missing  the  real  point  of  the  issue. 
Do  not  these  activities  interfere  with  the  studies,  I  shall 
be  asked;  do  they  not  take  time  and  energy  on  which  the 
teacher  has  a  rightful  claim?  Yes,  they  do.  But  there  are 
many  other  things  whose  interference  is  more  serious.  As 
for  that,  one  study,  if  it  be  successfully  taught,  interferes 
with  other  studies  not  so  well  taught.  But  in  the  give  and 
take  of  a  college  life,  a  study  should  be  able  to  take  care  of 
itself.  The  teacher  has  large  power  in  his  own  hands; 
if  he  cannot  exercise  it  then  the  fault  belongs  to  him  rather 
than  to  his  situation. 

Teachers  often  tell  me  of  their  worries  about  the  over- 
doing of  student  activities.  And  I  know  that  they  are 
overdone.  But  I  have  far  more  worry  about  the  men  who 
underdo  them.  The  men  I  worry  about  are  those  who 
overdo  the  inactivities.  What  of  the  men  who  do  no 
debating,  no  acting,  no  writing,  no  reading,  no  philanthropic 
services,  no  music?  What  have  we  done  to  them  or  failed 
to  do  to  them  in  the  classroom  that  they  should  be  willing 
simply  not  to  be  in  the  hours  in  which  they  are  free?  What 
in  the  world  do  they  do  with  themselves?  So  far  as  one 
can  see  they  just  dawdle.  They  are  the  men  who  play 


io6  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

cards  or  pool,  who  talk  about  the  teams,  read  the  papers, 
walk  the  streets,  watch  the  passers-by.  These  are  the  men 
for  whom  I  feel  responsibility,  about  whose  fate  I  torture 
my  soul  with  dreadful  anticipations.  Would  you  not 
rather  have  them  engaged  in  activities?  When  we  have 
found  some  way  of  saving  these  men  from  themselves,  it 
will  be  time  for  us  to  deal  with  their  brethren  who  are  at 
least  alive  and  whose  very  activity  at  times  puts  the  class- 
room to  shame. 

The  one  attitude  toward  student  activities  which  seems 
to  me  deplorable  is  a  kind  of  sullen  hostility  which  one 
sometimes  finds  in  earnest  college  teachers.  They  give  one 
the  impression  of  having  been  beaten  in  a  fight,  of  feeling 
that  the  worse  cause  has  prevailed  over  the  better,  of  re- 
senting both  their  defeat  and  the  unfairness  of  a  conflict 
in  which  such  a  defeat  is  possible.  Now  the  trouble  with 
this  attitude  is  that  it  is  not  sane,  and  further,  that  it 
places  the  teacher  in  an  utterly  false  relation  to  his  pupils. 
No  teacher  can  ever  afford  to  be  beaten  either  by  his  pupils 
or  by  their  friends.  He  must  be  master  and  that  for  the 
reason  that  he  has  in  charge  the  fundamental  interests  upon 
which  all  values  depend.  For  the  sake  of  those  interests 
he  must  dominate  the  boy  both  within  the  classroom  and 
outside  it,  and  whatever  the  difficulties,  he  may  never 
admit  himself  beaten  in  the  task.  I  am  convinced  that  the 
teachers  in  any  of  the  college  communities  which  we  know 
can  make  of  those  communities  what  they  will.  If  they 
fail,  the  fault  is  not  in  the  situation  but  in  the  men  whose 
business  it  is  to  master  it. 

IV 

I  began  this  paper  by  accepting  the  principle  concerning 
student  activities,  "The  less  said  about  them,  the  better." 
I  think  you  will  agree  with  me  that  I  have  been  loyal  to 
the  principle.  I  have  not  tried  to  say  anything  but  simply 
to  define  an  attitude. 

And  now  I  leave  my  parcel  on  the  cook's  table.  Let  him 
do  with  it  as  he  will. 


PART  III 
DISCUSSIONS  IN  EDUCATIONAL  THEORY 

THE   two   papers   here   given   are   early   adventures 
into   the   field   of  educational   theory.     The   first 
paper  was   given   at  the  general   meeting  of  the 
Religious  Education  Association  held  at  Brown  University 
in  March,  1911.     It  expresses  the  conviction  that  no  teach- 
ing of  knowledge  can  be  successful  unless  it  is  based  upon 
a  study  of  what  knowledge  is.     It  finds  logical  reflection 
upon  the  intellectual  process  to  be  essential  to  any  proper 
understanding  of  that  process  as  a  teacher  ought  to  under- 
stand it. 

The  second  paper  was  read  at  a  meeting  of  the  Associa- 
tion of  Schools  and  Colleges  of  New  England  at  Boston 
University  on  October  9,  1908.  The  paper  maintains  that  if 
the  logical  distinction  between  form  and  content  has  signifi- 
cance for  the  description  of  thinking,  then  the  theory  of 
formal  discipline  has  corresponding  validity  for  the  teacher  of 
thinking.  It  is  not  necessary,  if  one  seeks  to  justify  this 
theory,  that  one  appeal  to  a  discarded  and  discredited 
psychology  of  the  Faculties.  Logic,  modern  as  well  as 
ancient,  confirms  the  statement  that  the  most  important 
single  judgment  which  can  be  made  about  the  thinking 
process  is  that  which  singles  out  its  form  or  method  from  its 
content.  If  this  be  true  then  formal  discipline  in  some  very 
real  and  important  sense  must  be  at  the  very  heart  of  all 
intellectual  training  and  development. 


107 


LOGIC  IN  THE  COLLEGE  CURRICULUM 

COLLEGE  courses  are  roughly  divided  into  two  classes, 
(i)  those  which  give  training  and  (2)  those  which  give 
information,  which  add  to  the  sum  of  knowledge. 
My  impression  is  that  logic  has  kept  its  place  in  the  curricu- 
lum as  a  member  of  the  first  group.  The  teacher  of  logic, 
it  is  commonly  supposed,  does  not  deal  with  any  particular 
set  of  facts.  He  is  willing  to  choose  his  material  from  any 
field  of  human  knowledge.  He  may  discuss  such  diverse 
statements  as  All  men  are  mortal,  All  cats  like  fish,  A  straight 
line  is  the  shortest  distance  between  two  points.  But  in 
dealing  with  these  he  is  expected  to  give  to  his  students 
a  certain  mental  technique,  a  certain  delicacy  of  intellectual 
touch,  a  strength  of  mental  grasp,  which  will  fit  them  for  the 
work  of  thinking,  wherever  it  may  be  carried  on.  Now  it  is 
not  my  intention  to  minimize  the  importance  of  the  training 
value  of  logic.  I  would  maintain,  however,  that  this  con- 
tribution to  the  aims  of  college  education  is  far  less  im- 
portant than  the  information  or,  perhaps  better,  the  insight 
which  logic  gives  —  its  additions  to  the  sum  of  valuable 
and  significant  knowledge.  In  support  of  this  contention 
I  must  first  attempt  to  state  what  the  science  is  and  then 
endeavor  to  tell  what  it  has  to  give  to  the  upbuilding  of 
the  undergraduate  mind. 

In  common  with  other  ancient  disciplines,  logic  has 
suffered  many  inroads  and  encroachments  from  the  so-called 
modern  sciences.  The  old  boundary  lines  have  been  sadly 
broken  by  the  New  Psychology  with  its  studies  of  mental 
procedure  and  development,  by  the  New  Mathematics  in 
its  analysis  of  necessary  relationships,  by  the  New  Sociology 

108 


LOGIC  IN  THE  COLLEGE  CURRICULUM    109 

in  its  classification  of  the  sciences  and  its  general  enthusiasm 
for  whatever  may  be  called  social.  But  now  face  to  face 
with  these  invaders  we  have  a  New  Logic  as  well  —  a  logic 
well  able  to  give  a  good  account  of  itself  in  the  war  of 
definitions.  In  popular  opinion,  logic  has  commonly  been 
identified  with  the  mere  Art  of  the  Syllogism.  But  this  is 
simply  because  in  schemes  of  popular  education  the  syllogism 
has  been  singled  out  for  its  training  value  and  the  other 
more  essential  features  of  the  science  have  been  ignored  or 
unknown.  But  logic  is  to-day  a  field  of  study  defined  by 
a  clear-cut  conception  —  a  conception  which  at  once  gives 
unity  to  all  its  parts  and  marks  ofF  the  whole  from  other 
sciences  which  are  themselves  sufficiently  clear  to  admit 
of  proper  definition.  Though  the  sciences  have  changed 
in  content  and  procedure,  logic  is  still  the  science  of  the 
sciences  —  that  is,  the  science  which  studies  its  fellows. 
It  is  still  the  science  of  thinking,  though  thinking  in  the 
last  few  centuries  has  undergone  radical  transformation. 
The  task  of  logic  is  to  know  the  intellectual,  the  thinking 
activities  of  man.  Just  as  the  student  of  ethics  takes  the 
activities  of  willing  and  choosing  —  would  collate  them, 
describe,  classify,  explain,  organize  —  in  a  word,  know 
them  —  so  in  a  corresponding  sense  does  the  logician  en- 
deavor to  know  what  thinking  is  and  does  and  ought  to 
be.  Wherever  a  man  is  thinking  there  is  material  for  us 
to  examine.  The  physicist  measures  and  explains  his  data; 
we  will  measure  and  explain  the  physicist.  The  biologist 
tabulates  and  generalizes  his  observations;  we  will  tabulate 
and  generalize  about  biologists.  Sociology  springs  into 
being  as  a  new  intellectual  movement;  we  will  endeavor  to 
understand  that  movement,  to  know  what  it  is,  whence 
it  comes,  whither  it  is  bound.  In  a  word,  other  men  think 
about  the  world;  we  think  about  their  thinking,  and  seek 
to  know  thought  as  they  know  the  facts  with  which  their 
thought  deals. 

This  conception  of  an  external  scrutiny  of  the  sciences 
has  never  appealed  very  strongly  to  the  scientists  them- 


no  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

selves.  My  impression  is  that  they  have  often  felt  toward 
logic  as  they  are  now  feeling  toward  the  agents  of  Mr. 
Carnegie  —  namely,  that  they  know  their  own  business 
better  than  any  outsider  can  know  it,  and  that  it  would 
be  better  if  they  were  left  alone  to  the  guidance  of  their 
own  judgment.  It  may  perhaps  clear  the  issue  if  I  insist, 
just  as  Mr.  Pritchett  does,  that  our  aim  is  not  to  dictate 
what  the  scientist  shall  do  but  simply  to  know  what  he  is 
doing.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  insisted  that  the 
logician  hopes  to  understand  the  work  of  the  scientist  in 
a  way  and  to  a  degree  which  is  quite  impossible  to  the 
scientist  himself  so  long  as  he  remains  devoted  to  his  own 
facts  and  his  own  point  of  view.  We  do  not  know  his  facts 
but  we  do  intend  to  know  him,  his  aim,  his  problem,  his 
method,  his  concepts,  his  results.  For  the  sake  of  clearness, 
however,  let  me  indicate  the  kind  of  questions  which  we 
ask  concerning  him. 

Our  first  and  fundamental  question  is,  "What  are  men 
seeking  as  they  think?"  Now,  wherever  thinking  is  found, 
whether  on  the  street,  in  the  mill,  in  the  laboratory,  in  the 
study,  that  question  always  receives  one  answer.  Think- 
ing seeks  to  attain  Truth  and  to  avoid  Error.  To  define 
these  terms  then,  to  understand  the  common  purpose  of 
all  men  in  their  intellectual  strivings,  to  find  the  common 
element  of  which  all  thought  activities  are  simply  modi- 
fications, that  is  our  first  task  —  the  discovery  of  the 
fundamental  terms,  the  unit  of  explanation  —  the  first 
task  of  every  scientist  in  dealing  with  his  facts.  Again  we 
find  that  the  intellectual  inquiry  divides  itself  into  separate 
fields,  each  dealing  with  a  separate  group  of  facts.  The 
historian  is  dealing  with  individual  sequences  and  co- 
existences, the  physicist  with  quantitative  changes,  the 
biologist  with  living  forms,  the  psychologist  with  conscious 
processes,  the  economist  with  prices  and  exchanges.  And 
in  each  case  it  appears  that  the  nature  of  the  inquiry  is 
molded  and  shaped  by  the  nature  of  the  material  con- 
sidered. Here  then  is  another  set  of  questions.  What  are 


LOGIC  IN  THE  COLLEGE  CURRICULUM    in 

the  differences  in  aim,  the  differences  in  method,  the  differ- 
ences in  concepts  employed,  which  mark  off  these  investi- 
gations from  one  another?  Or  again,  since  these  separate 
investigations  have  the  common  aim  of  Truth  to  bind  them 
together  in  spite  of  their  differences,  what  are  their  relations 
of  significance  for  one  another  and  for  the  whole?  In  a 
word,  we  know  the  whole  field  of  human  knowledge  not  in 
all  its  contents,  but  in  its  form,  with  its  likenesses  and 
differences,  its  common  problems  and  its  separate  problems, 
its  general  methods  and  its  special  procedures,  its  funda- 
mental concepts  and  the  modifications  of  these  in  special 
fields.  We  do  not,  as  is  sometimes  supposed,  claim  to  know 
all  that  is  known,  but  we  do  intend  to  know  all  knowing 
in  exactly  the  same  degree  that  the  biologist  can  know  all 
life  and  the  physicist  know  all  matter. 

Now  it  is  a  commonplace  of  modern  logical  theory  that 
in  spite  of  their  membership  in  a  common  family,  the 
children  of  Truth  have  very  fundamental  differences  of 
presupposition,  of  problem,  and  of  method.  For  one  group 
of  investigations  the  chosen  task  is  the  formulation  of  facts 
in  terms  of  quantity  and  measurement.  For  another,  all 
comparisons  are  those  of  quality,  the  likenesses  and  differ- 
ences of  things.  In  the  mechanical  sciences  the  principle 
of  causation  is  the  final  term  of  explanation,  while  in 
biological  fields  the  notion  of  function  seems  far  more 
fundamental  and  significant.  In  the  studies  of  conscious- 
ness neither  cause  nor  function  seems  adequate  and  both 
give  way  before  the  concept  of  value  as  the  final  term  of 
human  experience.  Thus  we  find  the  sciences,  each  with 
its  own  distinct  problem,  each  dominated  by  its  own  pre- 
suppositions —  Sciences  of  Number  and  Quantity,  of 
Quality,  of  Cause  and  Effect,  of  Function,  of  Value  — 
these  as  we  find  them  in  our  studies  and  in  our  curriculum 
stand  apart  as  separate  enterprises  of  the  human  spirit, 
each  commanding  the  loyalty  and  interest  of  its  followers. 
It  is  this  situation  which  calls  for  the  organizing  activity 
of  the  student  of  logic.  If  we  would  know  our  world  at  all, 


U2  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

if  we  would  understand  our  own  intellectual  experiences, 
these  separate  groups  of  judgments  must  be  understood  in 
relation  to  each  other  and  to  the  whole.  Can  the  same 
fact  be  explained  in  terms  of  Quantity  and  Quality,  of  Cause 
and  of  Function,  in  terms  of  Existence  and  of  Value,  and  if 
so,  how  do  these  different  explanations  bear  upon  each 
other?  Here  is  a  world  of  apparent  discrepancies  and 
contradictions  which  must  be  solved  if  we  are  to  understand 
our  own  thoughts.  It  is  in  no  spirit  of  vainglorious  boast- 
ing that  the  student  of  logic  approaches  his  task. 

One  further  conclusion  of  logical  theory  must  here  be 
noted,  viz.,  that  you  can  never  get  unified  knowledge  by 
simply  adding  together  these  separate  contributions  of  the 
separate  sciences.  Departments  of  knowledge  which  have 
different  problems,  different  methods,  different  presup- 
positions, cannot  be  thrown  together  as  bricks  upon  bricks. 
Theirs  is  rather  the  organic  relation  in  which  no  part  is 
properly  understood  except  in  the  light  of  the  whole  and  yet 
in  which  every  part  performs  a  function  radically  different 
from  every  other.  The  history  of  human  thinking  is  check- 
ered with  the  controversies  which  have  arisen  from  the 
failure  to  perceive  this  relationship.  "Are  facts  describable 
in  terms  of  quantity?  Then  the  notions  of  quality  must 
be  thrown  aside."  "Is  the  life  of  man  genetically  derived 
from  lower  forms.  Then  it  has  no  value  higher  than  that 
of  those  forms."  "Is  the  human  will  causally  determined? 
Then  it  is  not  free."  "Is  the  world  to  be  conceived  as 
matter  in  motion?  Then  it  cannot  be  known  as  the  ex- 
pression of  a  divine  spirit."  These  are  misunderstandings 
and  misapprehensions,  every  one  of  which  has  come  from 
lack  of  knowledge  of  intellectual  relationships.  To  give  a 
way  of  escape  from  these  misunderstandings  is  some  part 
of  the  task  of  logic. 

If  now  we  turn  to  the  conception  of  Education,  the  place 
of  logic  in  the  general  scheme  is  not  hard  to  determine. 
It  is,  I  presume,  the  function  of  intellectual  education  to 
give  to  a  student  a  genuine  and  intimate  understanding  of 


LOGIC  IN  THE  COLLEGE  CURRICULUM    113 

the  intellectual  life  of  his  people,  and  to  fit  him  to  play  his 
proper  part  in  the  activities  of  that  life.  It  is  the  pre- 
supposition of  every  institution  of  learning  that  education 
in  this  sense  is  good  preparation  for  living  as  a  man  ought 
to  live.  A  man  is  better,  we  believe,  for  knowing  what  his 
fellows  have  thought  and  are  thinking,  and  for  being  able 
to  do  some  thinking  for  himself. 

Now  on  this  presumption  what  is  the  place  of  logic  in 
the  curriculum?  And  especially,  how  can  logic  contribute 
to  the  moral  and  religious  values  of  the  life  of  the  student? 
There  are  two  lines  of  answer  which  I  should  like  to  suggest. 

In  the  first  place,  the  most  striking  weakness  of  the 
curriculum  of  the  American  college  to-day  is  that  it  is  a 
thing  of  shreds  and  patches  with  little  pretension  to  any 
unity  of  design  or  purpose.  Under  the  wide  elective  system, 
a  student  is  given  opportunity  to  devote  himself  to  any  or 
all  of  a  great  multitude  of  intellectual  inquiries,  each  with 
its  own  special  task,  each  with  its  own  special  point  of  view. 
How  is  he  to  know  the  significance  of  these  studies  for  each 
other,  for  thought  as  a  whole,  or  for  life  as  a  whole?  It  is 
the  pride  and  boast  of  each  scientist  that  he  does  not  depart 
from  his  own  problem  nor  from  his  own  method.  Who 
then  is  to  give  to  the  student  the  bearings  of  that  method 
and  that  problem?  That  is  a  question  which  still  awaits 
an  answer.  But  in  these  latter  days  certain  measures  of 
improvement  have  been  attempted.  A  number  of  colleges 
have  insisted  that  a  student  shall  work  for  a  little 
while  in  each  of  the  great  branches  of  learning,  and 
they  are  beginning  to  require  that  he  study  thor- 
oughly in  at  least  one  department  of  knowledge.  But  this 
is  no  genuine  solution  of  the  problem.  Let  me  ask  —  If  you 
add  together  a  little  Mathematics,  a  little  Literature,  a 
little  each  of  History,  Physics,  Chemistry,  Economics, 
Social  Science,  International  Law,  and  Art,  what  do  you 
get?  You  certainly  get  a  great  deal  of  something,  but  what 
is  it?  In  its  parts  it  is  knowledge,  because  within  the 
parts  it  is  organized,  but  as  a  whole  it  is  not  knowledge, 


n4  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

for  the  different  parts  are  not  organized,  but  are  simply 
thrown  together.  The  boy  who  gets  this  education  knows 
a  great  many  things  but  he  does  not  know  the  world,  nor 
does  he  in  any  real  sense  know  the  intellectual  life  either  of 
himself  or  of  his  fellows.  If  logic  could  only  succeed  in 
preventing  this  piling  together  of  Quantities,  Qualities, 
Functions,  and  Values  into  one  great  heap;  if,  as  the  end 
of  a  student's  college  life  approaches,  it  could  help  him 
to  single  out  these  separate  elements,  to  arrange,  relate  and 
unify  them,  in  a  word,  to  understand  them,  its  work  would 
be  worth  while.  If  this  could  be  done  the  college  would 
send  forth  fewer  hodge-podge  dilettantes,  fewer  uneducated 
specialists.  It  would  give  us  more  men  of  genuine  culture. 
But  there  is  another  contribution  of  logic  which  is  of  even 
more  immediate  value  to  the  interests  of  morals  and  of 
religion.  I  can  simply  state  it  here  without  stopping  to 
explain.  Morals  and  religion  have  always  construed  life 
in  terms  of  Value.  In  the  last  three  or  four  centuries, 
however,  the  physical  and  natural  sciences  have  thrust 
upon  the  human  consciousness  the  other  concepts,  especially 
those  of  Quantity,  Causation  and  Function.  Now  the 
development  of  these  sciences  has  been  so  marvelous,  their 
achievements  so  great,  that  by  mere  fatigue  of  human 
attention,  by  mere  distraction  of  interest,  the  Value 
conceptions  have  been  obscured,  neglected,  and  in  many 
cases  even  lost.  Here  is  a  situation  with  which  every 
college  faculty  is  called  upon  to  deal.  No  college  has  a 
right  to-day  to  send  forth  boys  into  the  activities  of  human 
living  without  giving  them  a  clear  understanding  of  what 
the  Value  conceptions  are  and  how  they  differ  from  the 
notions  of  Cause  and  Function  which  dominate  the  fields 
of  Physics  and  Biology.  If  a  boy  has  not  been  made  to 
see  that  human  life  demands  a  type  of  explanation  different 
from  those  given  to  matter,  to  plant,  and  to  animal,  then 
the  college  has  not  done  its  work,  and  the  boy  is  not  intel- 
lectually prepared  for  the  moral  situations  which  lie  before 
him. 


LOGIC  IN  THE  COLLEGE  CURRICULUM    115 

If  now  we  sum  up  our  conclusions,  I  think  we  may  say 
that  logic  has  three  contributions  to  make  to  the  moral 
and  religious  welfare  of  the  college  student. 

In  the  first  place,  it  has  undoubted  training  value  which 
for  purposes  of  this  discussion  need  only  be  mentioned. 

Secondly,  by  its  studies  of  the  relations  of  the  sciences 
to  each  other  and  to  the  total  work  of  thinking,  it  makes 
possible  some  intelligible  formulation  of  that  world-wide 
view  which  underlies  every  system  of  religious  belief.  It 
frees  us  from  the  limitations  of  special  problems,  special 
methods,  special  fields.  It  opens  up  to  us  the  unitary  life 
of  the  human  spirit.  This  is  its  contribution  to  religion. 

And  thirdly,  it  makes  clear  the  peculiar  and  character- 
istic concepts  of  Value  in  terms  of  which  we  may  best 
understand  this  human  life  of  ours.  In  this  it  brings  clear- 
ness and  order  into  the  field  of  morals. 

I  fear  that  I  have  made  large  claims  for  the  significance 
of  logic.  But  it  is  hard  to  see  how,  in  an  institution  de- 
voted to  thinking,  one  could  claim  less  for  the  science  which 
studies  thinking  itself.  I  may  also  plead  that  this  is  not  the 
first  time  that  the  maxim  "Know  thyself"  has  been  given 
an  important  place  in  a  scheme  of  liberal  education. 


II 

IS  MENTAL  TRAINING  A  MYTH 

I  AM  sure  that  you  have  all  heard  the  most  recent  theory 
of  classical  scholarship  with  regard  to  the  real  or  mythical 
character  of  Homer.  It  is,  you  remember,  that  Homer  is 
a  myth,  that  the  Iliad  was  not  written  by  him,  but  by  another 
man  of  the  same  name.  It  is  in  very  much  the  same  spirit, 
I  fear,  and  with  very  much  the  same  result,  that  I  enter 
upon  the  attempt  to  provoke  in  your  minds  a  discussion  of 
the  theory  of  mental  training  or  formal  discipline.  My 
thesis,  in  a  word,  is  this:  "The  theory  of  mental  training, 
the  old  presupposition  of  our  educational  systems,  is  false, 
but  its  lineal  descendant  of  the  present  generation  is  true, 
and  that  descendant  rightly  bears  the  name  of  its  reverend 
ancestor." 

It  is  rather  a  pleasant  task  for  a  layman  to  do  what  he 
can  in  defense  of  so  old  and  worthy  a  tradition  as  that  of 
mental  training,  for  whether  true  or  false,  it  has  done  much 
for  the  theory  and  practise  of  our  education.  It  was  formu- 
lated not  later  than  the  Greeks,  it  was  taught  throughout 
the  entire  classic  tradition,  it  has  been  the  common  dogma 
of  educational  science  until  the  present  day,  it  is  advocated 
by  college  presidents  and  Committees  of  Ten;  if  we  accept 
their  own  words,  it  is  practised  by  many  of  those  who  de- 
clare themselves  its  enemies.  In  a  word,  it  is  a  respectable 
old  theory,  perhaps  even  a  sacred  one;  it  has  played  its  part, 
and  done  its  work  well;  it  is  worthy  of  such  gratitude  as 
we  may  care  to  offer.  So,  at  least,  it  appears  to  the  lay 
mind,  for  I  have  observed  that  however  eager  we  may  be 
to  press  on  to  the  discovery  of  new  truths  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  old  dogmas  in  our  own  academic  work,  most  of  us 

116 


IS  MENTAL   TRAINING  A  MTTH  117 

are  impatient  and  distressed  when  the  workers  in  other  fields 
direct  their  attacks  upon  those  ancient  structures  in  which 
we  have  housed  our  uncritical  beliefs  and  prejudices.  As 
a  layman,  then,  speaking  to  students  and  practitioners  of 
educational  theory,  may  I  come  before  you  to  stir  up  dis- 
cussion by  saying  a  good  word  for  the  old  theory  of  formal 
discipline,  and  if  it  be  no  longer  among  us  to  receive  the 
praise,  then  let  the  praise  fall  at  the  door  of  that  member 
of  the  family  who  to-day  lays  rightful  claim  to  the  ancestral 
place  among  educational  beliefs. 

As  one  reads  over  the  literature  of  the  discussion,  the 
most  satisfactory  statements  of  the  position  are  found  in 
the  illustrations  rather  than  in  the  technical  definitions. 
This  may,  of  course,  be  due  to  the  layness  of  one's  own 
mind,  but  to  the  lay  mind,  at  least,  it  indicates  that  the 
discussion  is  still  in  its  preliminary  stages.  The  fact  is 
that  the  critics  of  the  theory  are  applying  in  the  educa- 
tional field  a  psychological  point  of  view  which  has  not  yet, 
even  in  its  own  field,  been  brought  to  definiteness  and 
clearness;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  theory  of  mental 
training,  formulated  centuries  ago,  has  for  the  most  part 
received  expression  from  men  not  cognizant  of,  or,  at  least, 
directly  concerned  with,  the  recent  changes  in  psychological 
science  —  from  college  presidents,  for  example,  and  from 
other  men  whose  business  it  is  to  represent  before  the  public 
the  aims  and  achievements  of  school  and  college.  Now, 
it  is  possible,  of  course,  that  the  new  view  is  the  true  one, 
and  that  the  college  presidents  quite  unintentionally  are 
misleading  their  hearers.  It  may  be,  for  example,  that 
President  Woodrow  Wilson  is  mistaken  when  he  says: 
"We  speak  of  the  'disciplinary*  studies  .  .  .  having  in 
our  thought  the  mathematics  of  arithmetic,  elementary 
algebra,  and  geometry,  the  Greek-Latin  texts  and  grammars, 
the  elements  of  English  and  of  French  or  German.  .  .  . 
The  mind  takes  fiber,  facility,  strength,  adaptability, 
certainty  of  touch  from  handling  them,  when  the  teacher 
knows  his  art  and  their  power.  The  college  .  .  .  should 


ii8  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

give  .  .  .  elasticity  of  faculty  and  breadth  of  vision,  so 
that  they  shall  have  a  surplus  of  mind  to  expend.  .  .  ."  So, 
too,  President  Timothy  Dwight  of  Yale  University  may 
have  been  wrong  when  he  said  of  college  education,  "Such 
an  education  is  the  best  means  of  developing  thought 
power  in  a  young  man,  and  making  him  a  thinking  man  of 
cultured  mind."  It  must  be  admitted  that  the  statements 
have  something  of  the  ring  of  the  discredited  and  outworn 
psychology  of  faculties  rather  than  of  that  functional  science 
which  is  claiming  the  field  to-day.  But,  personally,  I  am 
of  the  opinion  that  the  difficulty  is  only  one  of  words.  I 
am  inclined  to  think  that  the  college  presidents  do  know 
what  they  are  driving  at,  even  though,  strange  as  it  may 
seem,  they  are  not  able  to  express  it  very  happily.  And 
if  this  be  so,  we  may  well  take  upon  ourselves  the  benevolent 
task  of  putting  words  into  their  mouths.  And,  at  the 
same  time,  we  may  suggest  to  their  critics  that 
they,  too,  have  as  yet  failed  to  reach  a  clearness  of  state- 
ment which  would  justify  the  throwing  of  stones  at  the 
windows  of  their  predecessors  and  present  rulers.  In  a 
word,  what  a  lay  mind  like  my  own  would  like  to  do  is  to 
reduce  the  two  conflicting  theories  to  the  terms  of  a  com- 
mon point  of  view  so  that,  face  to  face  and  on  the  same 
footing,  we  may  fairly  determine  to  which  of  them  belongs 
the  victory  in  the  conflict  which  they  are  waging. 

To  begin,  then,  with  illustrations,  we  are  told  that  the 
theory  of  mental  training  is  a  "gymnastic"  theory  of  mind. 
It  is  a  notion  drawn  from  analogy  with  the  body.  Just  as 
the  arm  may,  by  exercise,  develop  strength  which  may  then 
be  used  for  many  purposes,  such  as  throwing  a  ball,  wielding 
a  pen,  holding  a  plow,  so  the  mind  and  its  various  faculties 
may,  by  proper  training,  be  increased  in  power,  which  may 
then  be  expended  wherever  demand  may  call.  For  example, 
by  exercising  the  memory  in  nonsense  syllables  or  Latin 
verse,  one  may  improve  the  memorizing  power  in  general; 
by  training  the  observation  in  the  laboratory,  one  may  so 
develop  the  capacity  for  sense-discrimination  that  in  every 


7S  MENTAL   TRAINING  A  MYTH  119 

field  perception  will  be  keener  and  more  exact.  In  short, 
as  the  mind  has  many  faculties,  each  doing  its  own  part 
of  the  mental  toil,  each  of  these  may  be  strengthened 
through  exercise,  and  by  a  proper  course  of  study  all  of  them 
may  be  so  developed  that,  to  quote  Chancellor  MacCracken, 
the  student  "will  possess  a  better  disciplined  mind  for 
whatever  work  of  life  he  may  turn  his  attention  to." 

Now,  against  this  theory,  two  lines  of  argument  have 
been  advanced:  the  first  theoretical,  a  matter  of  definition, 
and  the  second  experimental,  a  matter  of  fact.  The  argu- 
ment from  definition  has  challenged  the  description  of  the 
mind  contained  in  the  theory  of  mental  training  as  given 
above.  It  has  criticized  the  division  of  the  mind  into 
faculties,  and  has  shown  that  division  to  be  absurd.  Upon 
that  point  there  can  be  no  further  question,  nor  need  there 
be,  so  far  as  the  notion  of  formal  discipline  is  concerned. 
It  has  also  challenged  the  analogy  between  mind  and  body 
implied  in  the  notions  of  exercise,  practise,  gymnastic 
training,  and  has  raised  the  query  whether  the  mind  is 
really  the  sort  of  thing  that  can  be  trained  and  practised. 
This  question  we  must  keep  before  us  as  essential  to  the 
controversy.  On  the  side  of  fact,  Professor  William  James, 
whose  hand  has  gone  early  and  deep  into  most  of  the  stir- 
rings of  the  philosophical  caldron  during  the  last  twenty- 
five  years,  has  here,  too,  had  a  leading  part  in  the  melting 
down  of  conventional  and  uncritical  dogma.  Experi- 
menting upon  memory  processes,  he  seemed  to  find  little 
improvement  in  grasp  of  one  kind  of  material  as  a  result 
of  memorizing  another,  and  so  he  has  stated  the  general 
question,  How  far  is  it  experimentally  true  that  exercise  in 
one  sort  of  mental  activity  gives  facility  and  power  in  other 
activities  more  or  less  closely  akin  to  the  first? 

With  regard  to  the  question  of  fact  much  valuable  ex- 
perimentation has  been  carried  on  in  the  psychological 
laboratories  and  the  schools  during  the  progress  of  the 
discussion.  The  question  being  how  far  one  activity  of  the 
mind  is  influenced  by  the  carrying  on  of  other  activities, 


I2o  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

the  answers  might  a  priori  be  expected  to  range  anywhere 
from  the  extreme  view  of  formal  discipline  on  the  one  hand 
to  the  equally  extreme  statement  of  psychological  atomism 
on  the  other.  According  to  the  former,  the  mind  may, 
by  the  exercise  of  certain  general  powers,  assume  immediate 
and  complete  command  over  great  masses  of  concrete 
functions.  According  to  the  latter,  each  activity  of  the 
mind  is  so  separate  and  independent  that  only  by  its  own 
exercise  with  all  its  distinctive  peculiarities  and  limitations 
can  it  be  improved  in  efficiency  and  ease.  The  former 
view  has  been  so  often  made  ridiculous  by  the  overstate- 
ment of  its  opponents  that  I  think  one  may  be  pardoned 
for  retaliation  when  opportunity  presents  itself. 

What  will  you  say  of  a  theory  that  the  training  of  the 
mind  is  so  specific  that  each  particular  act  gives  facility 
only  for  the  performing  again  of  that  same  act  just  as  it 
was  before?  Think  of  learning  to  drive  a  nail  with  a  yellow 
hammer,  and  then  realize  your  helplessness  if,  in  time  of 
need,  you  should  borrow  your  neighbor's  hammer  and  find 
it  painted  red.  Nay,  further  think  of  learning  to  use  a 
hammer  at  all  if  at  each  stroke  the  nail  has  gone  further 
into  the  wood,  and  the  sun  has  gone  lower  in  the  sky,  and 
the  temperature  of  your  body  has  risen  from  the  exercise, 
and,  in  fact,  everything  on  earth  and  under  the  earth  has 
changed  so  far  as  to  give  to  each  stroke  a  new  particularity 
all  its  own,  and  thus  has  cut  it  off  from  all  possibility  of 
influence  upon  or  influence  from  its  fellows.  No  one,  so  far 
as  I  know,  maintains  a  theory  such  as  this  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  no  one,  so  far  as  I  know,  maintains  a  theory 
of  the  exercise  of  the  mind  in  general  as  giving  immediate 
control  of  every  concrete  situation  in  life.  The  truth  lies 
somewhere  between  the  two,  and  just  where  it  lies  is  matter 
of  fact  to  be  determined  by  factual  investigation  so  far  as 
may  be. 

The  results  of  the  experimental  inquiries  thus  far  made  have 
received  their  latest  summarization  in  the  papers  of  Pro- 
fessors Angell,  Pillsbury,  and  Judd.  According  to  these 


7S  MENTAL   TRAINING  A  MYTH  121 

writers,  one  may  say  that  in  practically  all  the  functions 
open  to  statistical  investigation  the  influence  of  practise  in 
one  function  upon  certain  others  has  been  established  to  a 
degree  worthy  of  the  attention  of  the  student  of  education. 
For  example,  with  regard  to  that  memory  problem  to  which 
Professor  James  first  called  attention,  Professor  Pillsbury 
declares  that  the  investigations  seem  to  leave  little  doubt 
that  rote  memory  can  be  improved  by  practise,  and  that 
the  same  is  true  of  logical  memory  so  far  as  can  be  de- 
termined. Professor  Judd,  after  an  account  of  other  in- 
quiries, sums  up  the  situation  by  the  statement,  "These 
facts  certainly  justify  the  statement  that  mental  functions 
are  interrelated  and  interdependent  in  the  most  manifold 
ways.  Sometimes  the  training  of  an  attitude  aids  the 
positive  development  of  certain  other  attitudes.  Some- 
times, one  function  interferes  with  other  functions.  Above 
all  stands  the  fact  that  every  new  experience  changes  the 
individual's  capacity  for  new  experiences."  If  these  are 
fair  summaries  of  the  results  of  the  investigations,  then  I 
think  one  may  safely  say  that,  as  yet,  the  theory  of  formal 
discipline  is  not  experimentally  disproven. 

In  the  field  of  definition  the  first  task  of  those  who  take 
the  new  point  of  view  is  that  of  formulating  a  principle 
other  than  that  of  formal  discipline  in  which  the  facts  thus 
far  established  shall  be  properly  recognized.  Almost  with- 
out exception  this  has  been  accomplished  by  some  variation 
of  the  formula  of  Professor  Thorndike,  "The  answer  which 
I  shall  try  to  defend  is  that  a  change  in  one  function  alters 
any  other  only  in  so  far  as  the  two  functions  have  as  factors 
identical  elements."  But  if  one  ask  for  the  precise  meaning 
of  this  term  "identical"  or  "common  elements,"  it  must  be 
said  frankly  that  at  this  point  little  sdems  to  have  been 
accomplished.  Professor  Thorndike  tells  us  that  he  means 
by  identical  elements  "mental  processes  which  have  the 
same  cell  action  in  the  brain  as  their  physical  correlate." 
But  this  definition  can  hardly  be  of  immediate  service  to 
the  student  of  education,  and  apart  from  this  attempt  at 


122  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

definition  we  are  given  only  lists  of  common  elements  such 
as  methods,  habits  of  attention,  ideals,  attitudes  of  will, 
and  the  like,  all  of  which  are  significant,  but  no  one  of  which 
gives  us  an  answer  to  the  question,  "What  do  we  mean  by 
the  'common  element'?"  as  employed  in  the  theory  in 
question.  The  simple  fact  is  that  at  this  point  the  new 
theory  has  not  yet  reached  the  stage  of  clear  formulation; 
it  is  still  in  process  of  development.  In  short,  while  psycho- 
logical experiment  and  theory  have  established  as  a  good 
tentative  hypothesis  this  notion  of  the  common  element, 
experiment  has  not  yet  proceeded  far  enough  to  carry  it 
beyond  the  hypothetical  stage,  nor  has  the  formulation  been 
made  so  clear  and  definite  as  to  furnish  a  secure  basis  for 
attack  on  other  theories  which  have  some  measure  of 
scientific  respectability. 

In  this  situation,  it  is  the  primary  purpose  of  this  paper 
to  urge  that,  in  our  search  for  the  "common  element,"  we 
turn  from  the  field  of  psychology  into  that  of  another  em- 
pirical science  which  deals  with  consciousness,  —  I  mean 
the  science  of  logic.  And,  in  justification  of  this  procedure, 
may  I  suggest  that  it  was  from  the  point  of  view  of  logic, 
and  not  of  psychology,  that  the  doctrine  of  formal  discipline 
was  first  stated  and  maintained?  The  very  term,  formal 
discipline,  gives  evidence  of  its  origin,  indicating  a  point  of 
view  far  removed  from  that  of  the  psychologist,  and  it  may 
be  that  the  theory  first  formulated  by  logic  still  retains  a 
significance  from  the  standpoint  of  that  science.  At  any 
rate,  I  venture  to  offer  as  a  subject  for  this  evening's  dis- 
cussion the  following  thesis:  "For  the  empirical  science  of 
logic  the  term  form,  as  applied  to  our  intellectual  processes, 
indicates  a  common  element,  or  a  series  of  common  ele- 
ments, in  those  processes,  which  makes  the  theory  of  formal 
discipline  at  least  intelligible  and  apparently  tenable  as  a 
doctrine  of  intellectual  training."  In  other  words,  formal 
training  is  discipline  in  certain  discoverable  forms  of  in- 
tellectual activity.  It  does  not  imply  the  bad  psychology 
of  the  faculties;  it  does  imply  the  thoroughly  sound  and 


7S  MENTAL   TRAINING  A  MYTH  123 

respectable  distinction  of  form  and  content  which  is  made 
by  the  logician. 

Now,  I  know  that  thus  to  flaunt  logic  in  the  face  of  the 
psychologist  and  his  disciples  is,  in  these  days,  to  invite 
ridicule  and  gentle  intolerance  from  one's  adversaries. 
Year  after  year  I  have  the  pleasure  of  seeing  a  definition 
of  the  philosophical  sciences  frame  itself  in  the  minds  of 
an  elementary  class  as  they  acquire  familiarity  with  current 
literature  of  the  type  represented  by  Professor  Karl  Pearson. 
And  the  definition  is  this:  "Originally  all  knowledge  was 
a  confused  mass  of  popular  and  uncritical  opinions;  from 
this  mass  there  have  emerged  separate  fragments  which 
have  reached  clearness  of  expression  and  accuracy  of  method; 
these  are  the  sciences;  that  which  is  still  left  of  the  original 
chaos  is  philosophy."  Such  a  definition  coming  from  un- 
critical minds  is  thoroughly  typical  of  a  great  amount  of 
the  superficial  thinking  of  the  time.  My  impression  is  that 
it  has  found  a  foothold  even  within  the  field  of  education, 
for  even  here  I  have  seen  the  term  philosophical  applied  to 
a  method  as  a  term  of  reproach  for  lack  of  scientific  accuracy. 
But  it  is  the  secondary  thesis  of  this  paper  to  insist  that  for 
the  student  of  education  the  philosophical  sciences,  es- 
pecially those  of  logic,  ethics,  and  esthetics,  are  essential. 
With  a  brave  heart,  therefore,  as  the  advocate  of  a  cause, 
I  venture  to  ask  you  to  seek  in  the  field  of  logic  those  com- 
mon elements  of  intellectual  process  which  the  logician 
calls  its  forms. 

The  distinction  between  form  and  content  on  which  the 
science  of  logic  rests  is  not  an  easy  one  to  express.  Since 
the  doctrine  of  formal  discipline  was  first  stated  the  con- 
cept of  form  has  been  shaped  and  reshaped  by  many  a 
generation  of  thinkers,  and  as  this  has  been  done,  logic  has 
gone  through  transformations  quite  as  radical  as  that  of 
psychology  from  its  earlier  to  its  later  stage.  Even  now 
the  presuppositions  of  the  science  are  being  questioned  and 
tested  by  the  school  of  Pragmatists,  and  the  end  of  that 
controversy  is  not  yet.  But  meanwhile,  the  distinction  of 


124  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

form  and  content  seems  to  me  to  remain  as  an  essential 
concept  which  through  long  examination  has  been  brought 
to  a  relatively  high  degree  of  definiteness  and  usefulness. 

The  distinction  is  that  of  material  to  be  arranged  (the  con- 
tent) and  the  way  in  which  it  is  arranged  (the  form).  This 
does  not  mean,  of  course,  that  first  we  have  material  which 
has  no  form,  no  arrangement,  and  thereupon  we  take  it 
and  put  it  into  relationships.  It  means,  rather,  that  in 
every  actual  object  of  experience  we  can  and  must  for 
purposes  of  description  separate  in  thought  the  two  ele- 
ments of  the  content  and  the  form.  Thus  if  I  place  these 
pieces  of  paper  in  an  ordered  arrangement  and  number 
them  i,  2,  3,  4,  5,  —  then  the  papers  are  for  me  a  certain 
content,  a  material,  while  the  numerical  order  is  the  form 
in  which  I  now  place  them.  Or,  again,  if  a  man  who  is 
building  a  boat  takes  wood  and  nails,  paint  and  pitch, 
these  are  for  him  the  materials,  the  content,  to  be  used; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  fitting  and  joining  of  the  parts, 
the  designing,  the  building,  the  finishing,  all  these  are 
processes  of  giving  to  the  material  a  form,  that  structure 
and  model  after  which  the  builder  of  the  boat  must  seek. 
Or,  again,  if  I  examine  a  tree  I  find  not  only  leaf  and  branch 
and  trunk,  each  with  its  own  constituent  parts,  but  each 
of  these  stands  in  definite  relations  to  all  the  others;  and, 
further,  as  the  process  of  growth  goes  on,  not  only  is  there 
addition  of  new  material  and  casting  off"  of  old,  but  there 
are  also  those  transformations  of  inner  and  external  re- 
lationship which  are  the  form,  the  very  manner  of  its  living. 

Now,  it  is  in  this  sense  of  the  term  that  the  student  of 
logic  examining  our  mental  activities  attempts  a  classi- 
fication of  their  formal  elements,  their  similarities  of  pro- 
cedure. His  purpose  is  to  arrange  them  in  a  diverging 
series  leading  from  the  most  fundamental  and  universal 
down  through  its  subforms,  and  the  sub-forms  of  these, 
which  step  by  step  become  less  extensive  in  their  scope, 
until  we  approach  as  near  as  we  may  to  the  particular  modes 
of  concrete  thinking,  with  all  their  peculiarities  and  unique- 


IS  MENT4L   TRAINING  A  MTTH  125 

nesses.  The  results  of  this  attempt  are  to  be  found  in  those 
lists  of  categories  which  from  Aristotle  down  have  held  a 
central  place  among  the  achievements  of  the  logicians.  It 
is  not  my  purpose  at  this  time  to  suggest  a  list  of  the  cate- 
gories, but  I  should  like  to  mention  two  or  three  of  them 
for  the  sake  of  giving  point  to  the  thesis  that  formal  dis- 
cipline is  the  practise  of  the  mind  in  certain  forms  or  methods 
of  thinking  which  are  "common  elements"  in  wide  ranges  of 
our  experience. 

The  most  fundamental  of  the  categories  is  that  which 
has  long  been  expressed  as  the  Law  of  Contradiction,  but  is 
now  usually  stated  in  terms  of  system,  coherence,  organiza- 
tion. It  is  a  generalization  of  the  observed  fact  that  the 
mind,  wherever  and  however  it  thinks,  is  always  striving 
after  order,  is  seeking  to  make  systematic  a  content  which 
has  been  thus  far  relatively  chaotic  and  incoherent.  It  is 
a  statement  of  the  fact  that  you  and  I,  as  our  daily  life 
goes  on,  are  thinking  multitudes  of  thoughts  which,  upon 
examination,  turn  out  to  be  contradictory  of  each  other, 
and  which,  therefore,  must  be  so  modified  that  they  may 
dwell  together  in  the  same  thought-system.  It  is  an 
expression  of  the  principle  that  our  various  judgments  and 
descriptions  of  the  world  are  so  related  and  interrelated 
that  no  one  of  them  can  be  regarded  as  finally  true  until 
it  has  been  shown  to  be  consistent  with  every  other  judg- 
ment of  fact  made  by  the  same  mind  about  the  same  world. 
From  this  point  of  view,  then,  the  one  fundamental  form 
of  mental  activity,  the  one  "common  element"  in  all  mental 
procedure  is  the  making  of  judgments  consistent  with  one 
another,  the  constructing  of  a  system  of  judgments  within 
which  each  of  them  may  find  a  proper  place.  In  a  word, 
it  is  the  eradication  of  inconsistency,  the  establishing  of 
order. 

An  excellent  illustration  of  this  demand  for  formal  unity 
was  furnished  me  in  my  own  experience  during  the  past 
summer.  Sitting  day  by  day  looking  across  Long  Island 
Sound  from  a  point  on  the  Connecticut  shore,  I  had  in  some 


126  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

way  or  other  gotten  the  notion  that  my  gaze  was  directed 
toward  the  north;  from  this  it  followed  as  a  matter  of  direct 
inference  that  Providence  lay  on  my  right  hand  and  New 
York  on  my  left.  It  is  true  that  the  notion  also  required 
the  revision  of  certain  other  ideas  about  the  rising  of  the 
sun  and  the  going  down  of  the  same,  but  I  have  not,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  had  much  interest  in  the  rising  of  the  sun, 
nor,  so  far  as  points  of  the  compass  are  concerned,  in  its 
setting  either.  And  so  these  obvious  difficulties  failed  to 
bring  my  imagination  into  line  with  the  descriptions  which 
I  can  remember  as  given  in  my  old  school  geography. 
When,  however,  it  became  necessary  for  me  to  start  for 
Providence,  other  considerations  appeared.  Going  to  the 
station  as  I  did,  facing  away  from  the  water,  I  fully  intended 
to  take  a  train  toward  the  left,  but  fortunately,  station- 
master  and  brakemen  intervened  and  quite  contrary  to 
my  own  imagining  I  was  led  and  carried  to  the  city  and  the 
college  of  my  search.  But  not  even  here  were  my  troubles 
ended,  for  during  the  four  different  journeys  which  I  have 
taken  along  the  line  during  the  summer  I  have  spent  hours, 
I  am  sure,  in  trying  to  determine  as  a  matter  of  imagination, 
on  which  side  of  the  line  the  station  house  at  New  London 
lies,  whether  on  your  right  or  your  left  hand  as  you  approach 
it  from  New  Haven.  The  shock  of  finding  it  where  it  ought 
not  to  be  gives  one  a  feeling  of  turned-roundness  that  no 
one,  I  think,  would  willingly  encounter.  It  is  the  shock 
of  the  failure  of  one's  thinking.  It  means  that  one  has  not 
succeeded  in  bringing  one's  mental  content  into  order. 
The  judgment  "the  station  will  appear  on  the  left"  and 
the  perceptual  experience  "there  it  is  on  the  right"  are 
left  facing  each  other  in  such  flat  and  blank  contradiction 
that  one  feels  either  that  he  is  a  fool,  or  that,  with  Alice, 
he  has  wandered  through  the  looking-glass  to  the  region 
where  the  laws  of  logic  no  longer  apply. 

If  now  it  be  asked  what  are  some  of  the  sub-forms,  the 
less  fundamental  modes  of  relating  contents  which  the 
mind  employs,  it  should  be  noted  that  one  of  them  has  been 


7S  MENTAL   TRAINING  A  MYTH  127 

already  given  —  the  form  of  space  —  of  position,  direction, 
and  distance.  The  space  relations  do  not  apply  to  all  the 
objects  of  our  experience,  nor  do  they  exhaust  all  the  re- 
lationships of  those  objects  to  which  they  do  apply,  but 
they  are  none  the  less  among  the  most  significant  of  the 
methods  which  the  mind  uses  in  its  work.  Other  forms 
whose  importance  for  our  thinking  are  equally  obvious  are 
the  establishing  of  causal  relationships,  which  may  be 
carried  on  throughout  the  entire  field  of  natural  phenomena, 
the  category  of  likeness  and  difference  which  finds  expres- 
sion wherever  the  activities  of  comparison  and  discrimination 
appear.  Somewhat  different  in  type  are  the  activities  of 
representation  in  terms  of  written  and  spoken  language, 
including  the  language  of  number  upon  which  our  sciences 
depend  for  complexity  and  breadth  of  view,  as  well  as  for 
accuracy  of  statement.  These  activities  of  comparing 
and  discriminating,  of  establishing  causal  and  spatial 
relations,  of  representing  our  sensuous  content  in  the  various 
symbolisms  of  language,  all  these  are  typical  instances  of 
the  mind's  activity  as  it  constructs  and  systematizes  its 
world.  As  such,  each  of  them  gives  us  a  certain  common 
element  of  "form,"  which  will  be  found  in  wide  ranges  of 
mental  activity;  each  of  them  may  be  developed  and 
trained  as  a  distinctive  mode  of  thinking.  If  now  we  may 
state  the  doctrine  of  formal  discipline  in  the  terms  which  we 
have  tried  to  define,  it  would  run  somewhat  as  follows: 
It  is  one  of  the  tasks  of  education  to  so  train  the  mind 
that  it  may  do  well  the  work  of  thinking.  In  order  to 
accomplish  this,  it  must  select  those  kinds  of  mental  activity 
which  seem  most  fundamental  and  important  for  the  life 
of  the  student.  It  must  then  make  such  selection  of  studies 
and  must  provide  such  a  teacher  that  the  student  practised 
in  these  forms  of  thinking  shall  be  made  ready  to  use  them 
as  well  as  possible  in  the  new  situations  which  are  his 
opportunities  for  achievement.  In  explanation  of  this 
statement,  I  should  like  to  offer  a  few  words  of  interpre- 
tation and  restriction. 


128  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

It  has  been  said  that  formal  discipline  sets  only  one  of  the 
tasks  of  the  educator  for  the  reason  that,  obviously,  the 
training  of  the  mind  in  this  sense  is  not  all  of  education. 
There  must  be  teaching  of  the  will  and  of  the  emotions,  as 
well  as  the  merely  mental  processes.  Quite  as  important, 
too,  is  the  task  of  furnishing  the  mind  with  proper  content, 
of  giving  it  acquaintance  with  the  world,  of  supplying  it  with 
facts,  with  interests,  of  giving  it  something  to  think  about. 
It  is  a  valid  criticism  of  much  of  our  moral  teaching  in  the 
past  that  we  have  too  often  simply  laid  down  the  moral 
laws,  or  forms,  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor,"  and  have 
left  our  pupils  in  such  ignorance,  both  of  themselves  and 
their  neighbors,  that  their  morality  has  expended  itself  in 
idle  sentiment  or  in  blundering  stupidity.  So,  too,  with 
regard  to  intellectual  training.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
wave  of  criticism  against  formal  training  as  such  is  simply 
the  result  of  that  great  inrush  of  new  thought  material 
from  the  natural  sciences  which  has  made  us  despise  the 
thinking  of  those  who,  in  an  earlier  time,  had  little  of  in- 
formation upon  which  to  employ  their  forming  activities. 
But  none  the  less,  the  formal  side  is  essential,  and  it  becomes 
more  and  more  essential  according  as  greater  masses  of 
material  are  thrust  upon  us  to  be  rescued  from  incoherence 
and  chaos. 

Again,  if  the  question  be  raised  "What  are  the  best  studies 
for  the  training  of  the  mind;  ought  we  to  study  the  classics 
or  the  sciences,  fine  arts  or  engineering?"  I  fear  that  I  have 
no  answer  ready.  I  am  persuaded,  however,  that  far  more 
important  than  the  subject  is  the  mind  of  the  teacher. 
The  one  sure  way  to  learn  good  thinking  is  to  come  into 
contact  with  a  mind  which  thinks  well  and  to  feel  its  in- 
fluence. In  the  game  of  thinking,  as  in  the  games  of  the 
athletic  field,  one  learns  best  by  practise  in  fast  company. 
And  it  is  not,  in  my  opinion,  necessary,  as  is  sometimes 
suggested,  that  the  method  of  the  teacher  should  find 
expression  in  conscious  ideals  which  may  be  communicated 
as  guiding  principles  to  the  student.  Knowledge  of  the 


7S  MENTAL   TRAINING  A  MYTH  129 

forms  of  logic  is,  alas,  no  guarantee  of  excellence  in  their 
use,  just  as  acquaintance  with  the  symbolism  of  mathe- 
matics is  not  always  conjoined  with  accuracy  and  precision 
in  the  conduct  of  life. 

With  regard  to  the  experimental  inquiries  into  the  prob- 
lem in  hand,  it  should  be  said  that  from  the  point  of  view 
here  taken  it  does  not  follow  that  practise  in  a  form  of  think- 
ing in  one  set  of  contents  must  give  at  once  equal  facility  in 
the  same  sort  of  thinking  in  another  field.  It  does  not  fol- 
low that  the  college  teacher  or  college  graduate  is  fully 
equipped,  in  virtue  of  his  training,  to  build  a  ship,  manage 
a  caucus,  teach  a  school,  or  rule  a  home.  In  these  activities, 
as  well  as  in  all  others  in  which  men  engage,  it  is  necessary 
that  the  mind  be  well  stored  in  addition  to  being  well  trained. 
For  the  carrying  on  of  any  pursuit,  we  need  not  only  talent, 
native  or  acquired,  but  also  information,  interest,  practise,, 
before  the  work  can  be  successfully  done.  Exercise  in  one1 
function  should  not  be  expected,  therefore,  to  give  equal 
facility  in  the  carrying  on  of  another.  Obviously  it  does 
not,  and  the  degree  of  the  difficulty  of  transfer  is  determined, 
not  only  by  identity  or  differences  in  the  formal  elements, 
but  also  by  differences  and  similarities  in  the  contents  as 
well.  That  such  a  position  is  in  accordance  with  the 
results  of  investigations  thus  far  made  will  not,  I  think, 
be  denied. 

It  is  often  asked,  when  words  are  not  used  in  the  senses 
which  we  have  given  them,  "But  are  not  the  forms  of  think- 
ing merely  contents  after  all;  does  not  the  distinction  of  form 
and  content  break  down,  therefore,  into  the  description  of 
mental  processes  in  terms  of  that  which  they  contain?" 
To  this  we  may  answer,  "Yes,  the  forms  of  thinking  are 
mental  contents  in  at  least  two  legitimate  senses:  first,  in 
that  they  are  within  the  mind,  are  elements  of  the  mental 
process;  and,  second,  in  that  they  can  be  stated  in  terms  of 
principles  and  appear  as  fully  formed  judgments  or  ideals, 
as,  for  example,  in  the  causal  law,  *  Given  conditions  are 
always  followed  by  the  same  result.' '  But  neither  of  these 


I3o  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

uses  of  the  term  content  is  that  which  we  have  employed; 
ours  is  the  abstract  resolution  of  every  intellectual  process 
into  its  material  and  its  form,  and  the  double  or  triple  use 
of  the  term  content  should  not  be  allowed  to  plunge  us  into 
ambiguity. 

The  one  word  which  sums  up  the  theory  of  formal  dis- 
cipline is  method,  or,  rather,  methods.  It  is  the  theory  that 
the  mind  can  be  trained  to  do  well  certain  kinds  of  work, 
to  follow  successfully  certain  methods  of  procedure.  It  is, 
I  think,  what  Mr.  Thorndike,  in  spite  of  his  hostility  to  the 
theory,  has  in  mind  when,  summing  up  the  results  of  his 
own  work,  he  says:  "The  chief  duty  of  serious  students  of 
the  theory  of  education  to-day  is  to  form  the  habit  of  in- 
ductive study  and  learn  the  logic  of  statistics.  Long  after 
every  statement  in  this  book  has  been  superseded  by  a 
truer  one  the  method  which  it  tries  to  illustrate  will  still  be 
profitable,  and  the  ideals  of  accuracy  and  honesty  in  statis- 
tical procedure  by  which  I  hope  it  has  been  guided  will 
still  be  honored." 

And,  finally,  may  I  insist  that  the  doctrine  of  formal 
discipline,  as  so  stated,  has  no  connection  whatever  with 
the  psychology  of  faculties.  If  there  is  one  notion  which 
would  break  down  the  conception  of  a  system  of  formal 
modes  of  procedure,  it  is  that  of  the  mind  as  broken  up  into 
the  separate  minds  of  reasoning,  observation,  imagination, 
memory,  and  the  rest.  The  advocates  of  formal  discipline 
may  blithely  join  forces  with  their  opponents  in  consigning 
to  oblivion  a  dogma  which  has  perished  from  the  earth  and 
has  left  behind  no  one  to  perpetuate  its  name. 

And  so  with  reservation  and  explanation  I  offer  you  for 
discussion  an  interpretation  of  the  doctrine  of  formal  dis- 
cipline from  the  standpoint  of  the  science  of  logic.  Men- 
tal training  does  not  seem  to  me  by  any  means 
the  whole  of  education,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  mental 
training  is  not,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  a  myth.  It  is  a  theory 
which  has  found  lodging  in  many  minds  not  given  to  mythi- 
cal imaginings.  It  is  a  theory  which,  as  one  of  the  stand- 


7S  MENTAL   TRAINING  A  MYTH  131 

ard  books  in  education  seems  to  say,  though  a  psychological 
absurdity,  is  yet  obviously  true  as  an  explanation  of  the 
facts  of  mental  experience.  It  is  a  theory  which  is,  at  least, 
respectable,  and,  however  it  may  appear  from  another 
point  of  view,  from  its  own  standpoint  it  seems  to  have  a 
meaning. 

I  cannot  close  this  paper  nor  consider  my  task  ended 
until  I  have  at  least  stated  for  your  consideration  the 
secondary  thesis  which  has  been  implicit  throughout  the 
discussion.  It  is  this  —  that  the  students  of  educational 
theory  seem  to  me  to  give  relatively  far  too  much  attention 
to  the  descriptive  work  of  psychology  and  far  too  little  to 
the  results  of  the  normative  sciences  of  ethics,  esthetics, 
and  logic.  In  his  keen  and  lucid  study  of  educational 
psychology  Professor  Thorndike  draws  just  the  distinction 
which  I  have  in  mind.  At  the  beginning  of  the  book, 
speaking  from  the  standpoint  of  psychology  he  says:  "The 
work  of  education  is  to  make  changes  in  human  minds  and 
bodies."  And  of  the  mind  he  says  elsewhere  (p.  30),  "The 
mind  is  really  but  the  sum  total  of  an  individual's  feelings 
and  acts,  of  the  connections  between  outside  events  and 
'its  responses  thereto,  and  of  the  possibilities  of  having  such 
feelings,  acts,  and  connections."  In  his  closing  chapter, 
however,  after  discussing  the  facts  of  the  mental  life  from 
this  point  of  view,  he  says,  "A  theory  of  education  must 
decide  two  questions:  (i)  What  ought  people  to  be?  (2)  how 
shall  we  change  them  from  what  they  are  to  what  they 
ought  to  be?"  With  respect  to  the  first  of  these  questions 
Mr.  Thorndike  says,  "The  studies  which  have  been  made 
in  this  book  have  nothing  to  do  with  it."  But  it  seems  to 
me  obvious  that  the  question  "What  ought  people  to  be?" 
is  one  which  the  student  of  education  must  keep  in  mind 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  his  inquiry. 

First  he  must  do  so  for  the  very  evident  reason  that  if 
he  is  not  simply  to  change  his  pupils,  but  to  change  them 
in  the  direction  in  which  they  ought  to  go,  he  must  know 
the  ideal  in  terms  of  which  that  direction  is  defined.  And, 


132  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

secondly,  just  so  soon  as  he  takes  the  standpoint  of  that 
ideal,  the  normative  standpoint,  he  will  find  that  the  de- 
scriptions of  mind  which  are  made  from  the  factual  point 
of  view  are  no  longer  adequate  or  true.  Nowhere  is 
this  more  clearly  shown  than  in  the  consideration  of  the 
unity  of  the  mind  which  has  been  the  constant  theme  of 
this  paper.  For  Mr.  Thorndike  the  mind  is  very  properly 
a  "sum  total  of  an  individual's  feelings  and  acts,"  etc. 
For  certain  other  students  who  take  the  descriptive  attitude, 
it  is  possible  to  say:  "We  mean  nothing  more  by  the  unity 
of  the  mind  than  that  it  is  not  divided  into  faculties.  The 
term  can  be  given  no  positive  meaning  whatever."  But 
just  so  soon  as  we  take  the  point  of  view  of  the  mental 
processes  as  directed  toward  a  goal,  as  doing  well  or  ill  a  task 
which  they  have  undertaken,  the  unity  of  the  mind  appears 
in  a  sense  which  is  essential  to  the  statement  of  the  task  of 
the  educator.  That  unity  consists  in  the  fact  that  each 
thought,  each  idea,  is  not  simply  conjoined  with  its  fellows 
in  a  common  receptacle,  but  that  each  is  demanding  of 
the  others  that  they  be  consistent  with  it  if  they  are  to  be 
held  true  and  valuable  in  the  experience  of  an  individual 
whose  thoughts  they  are.  From  this  point  of  view  the  self 
is  not  a  sum  total:  it  is  a  unity.  Its  unity  is  that  upon 
every  mental  process  within  its  experience  there  is  laid  the 
same  demand  that  it  take  its  place  in  a  system,  and  that  it 
submit  to  whatever  transformations  may  be  necessary 
for  its  membership  in  that  system.  In  a  word,  the  unity 
of  the  self  is  essentially  a  normative  conception.  In  exactly 
the  same  way  as  one  may  run  through  a  book  and  find 
simply  words,  may  look  at  a  picture  and  find  only  colors, 
may  listen  to  an  organ  and  hear  only  sounds,  so  may  one 
run  through  the  life  of  the  self  and  find  simply  experiences. 
But  in  no  one  of  these  cases  have  we  taken  the  point  of 
view  which  is  most  closely  related  to  the  concrete  affairs 
of  life,  and  in  no  one  of  them,  therefore,  have  we  included 
all  the  truth  which  is  vital.  The  student  of  education  must 
define  his  pupil  primarily  not  from  the  factual  point  of 


7S  MENTAL   TRAINING  A  MYTH  133 

view,  but  from  the  evaluative  point  of  view.  When  he 
does  so  define  he  will  discover  an  experience  whose  unity 
appears  rather  in  its  ideals  than  in  its  processes.  In  my 
opinion  he  will  find  a  unitary  self,  the  training  of  whose 
mental  processes  is  not  a  myth. 


PART  IF 
THE  CURRICULUM 

THE  three  papers  here  given  are  extracts  from  reports 
of  the  President  to  the  Trustees  of  Amherst  Col- 
lege. They  present  definite  proposals  for  the 
organization  of  the  course  of  study  in  a  liberal  college. 
On  the  assumption  that  the  purpose  of  liberal  study  is  as 
definite  and  as  compelling  as  that  of  a  professional  school, 
these  reports  condemn  the  theory  of  election  in  college 
studies  and  demand  that  college  instruction  be  fitted  to 
its  purpose.  They  are  not  content  with  the  establishing  of 
the  mere  possibility  that  an  education  may  be  secured  in 
college.  They  insist  upon  at  least  some  measure  of  proba- 
bility. 

The  report  of  1914  contains  a  record  of  curriculum  changes 
adopted  at  Amherst  College  during  the  years  1913  and  1914 
and  also  a  proposal  of  further  action.  The  first  of  the 
two  extracts  here  given  describes  the  most  striking  of  the 
changes  which  had  been  voted.  The  second  extract  is  a 
discussion  of  a  tentative  plan  of  a  college  curriculum  as 
a  whole. 

The  report  of  1918  gives  an  account  of  developments  in 
educational  discussion  and  policy  in  Amherst  College  since 
1912.  Upon  this  account  is  based  a  proposal  to  reshape 
the  organization  of  the  college  teaching  so  as  to  adjust  it 
to  its  purposes.  In  the  extract  here  given  it  is  proposed 
that  the  first  two  years  of  the  course  be  sharply  separated 
from  the  last  two  and  that  each  of  these  divisions  be  given 
methods  of  teaching  and  examination  suited  to  the  work 
which  it  has  to  do. 

134 


A  COURSE  FOR  FRESHMEN 

THE  most  significant  feature  of  the  educational  changes 
which  were  put  into  effect  in  the  fall  of  1914  is  the 
placing  of  an  elective  course  in  social  and  economic 
institutions  in  the  Freshman  year.  The  name  of  the  course 
has  been  left  in  vague  outline  because  its  exact  nature  must 
be  determined  by  the  interest  and  method  of  the  teacher 
who  gives  it.  Its  purpose,  whatever  form  it  may  take, 
will  be  to  serve  as  an  introduction  to  the  humanistic  sciences. 
We  wish  if  possible  to  make  students,  at  the  very  beginning 
of  the  college  course,  aware  of  the  moral,  social,  and  economic 
scheme  —  the  society  —  of  which  they  are  members.  Such 
a  course  should  not  encourage  boys  to  believe  that  they  have 
all  at  once  found  solutions  of  the  problems  by  which  their 
elder  brothers  are  sorely  perplexed;  nor  should  it  cast 
them  down  into  the  scepticism  which  regards  all  problems 
as  insoluble.  Its  functions  are  rather  (i)  a  sane,  searching, 
revealing  of  the  facts  of  the  human  situation,  and  (2)  a 
showing  of  the  intellectual  method  by  which  these  situations 
may  be  understood.  It  should  be  primarily  an  introduction 
to  ethics,  logic,  history,  economics,  law,  government,  and 
not  in  any  large  degree  an  end  in  itself.  Such  a  course 
presents  many  problems  for  the  teacher;  for  the  sake  of 
simplifying  his  task  the  course  will  be  limited  to  members 
of  the  Freshman  class. 

It  is  only  fair  that  I  say  that  many  members  of  the 
faculty  and  of  the  board  of  trustees  regard  this  new  Fresh- 
man course  as  an  experiment  of  rather  doubtful  wisdom. 
Their  chief  objection  is  that  boys  in  the  first  year  of  college 
life  are  not  ready  for  the  examination  of  human  living. 

135 


136  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

They  believe  that  such  studies  cannot  have  the  accuracy 
nor  the  thoroughness  which  are  needed  to  give  the  dis- 
ciplinary quality  which  Freshman  subjects  should  have. 
They  fear  vagueness  and  incoherence  of  mental  content 
and  looseness  of  intellectual  method  as  a  result  of  plunging 
boys  into  situations  by  which  all  of  us,  young  and  old  alike, 
are  baffled. 

It  would  be  idle  to  deny  the  force  of  this  objection,  and 
so  far  as  the  objection  holds,  the  new  course  is  an  experi- 
ment. There  are,  however,  considerations  on  the  other 
side  and  they  seem  to  me  so  strong  as  to  make  it  essential 
that  the  course  be  given. 

In  the  first  place,  I  would  suggest  that  incoherence  and 
looseness  of  intellectual  method  are  better  discovered  at 
the  beginning  of  the  college  course  than  at  its  end.  As  our 
curriculum  is  now  given,  one  of  the  most  common  of  its 
results  is  that  not  until  their  college  opportunities  are 
almost  past  do  our  boys  come  to  realise  what  they  ought 
to  be  thinking  about.  Every  year  we  send  out,  usually 
among  our  best  minds,  boys  who  have  at  last  come  to  aware- 
ness of  the  human  situation,  but  who  have  had  no  systematic 
training  in  dealing  with  it.  Such  boys  are  dangerous  to 
themselves  and  to  their  fellows.  Only  in  much  greater 
time  and  with  far  greater  effort  will  they  work  out  a  method, 
and  a  point  of  view,  the  beginnings  of  which  at  least  they 
might  have  secured  during  the  college  years. 

Again,  it  is  just  this  inexactness  of  content,  this  looseness 
of  method,  which  gives  opportunity  for  the  genuine  teacher. 
If  the  teaching  be  properly  done  boys  will  perceive  that 
their  own  thinking  is  a  poor,  silly,  inept  semblance  of 
activity.  They  will  be  brought  to  face  the  fact  that  before 
the  genuine  human  problems  their  information  is  scanty 
and  inexact,  their  reasoning  confused  and  inconsistent.  If 
the  teaching  be  properly  done,  the  pupils  will  see  what  they 
have  to  accomplish  in  the  three  remaining  years.  If  the 
teaching  be  not  properly  done  —  but  it  must  be. 

The  simple  fact  is  that  at  this  point  the  progress  of  educa- 


A  COURSE  FOR  FRESHMEN  137 

tion  is  following  the  progress  of  the  knowledge  upon  which 
it  depends.  We  have  had  no  teaching  in  the  humanistic 
sciences  because  there  were  no  such  sciences.  Our  direct 
understanding  of  human  experience  has  been  given  on  the 
one  hand  through  the  appreciations  and  concrete  represen- 
tations of  literature,  and  on  the  other,  through  relatively 
inaccurate  applications  of  philosophy  and  history.  But 
however  unwilling  we  may  be  to  recognize  it,  it  is  clear 
that  the  new  studies  of  human  experience  and  activity 
are  now  achieving  in  some  measure  the  character  of  science. 
In  the  beginnings  of  the  intellectual  life  of  Europe,  our 
first  discovery  was  that  certain  quantitative  aspects  of 
nature,  admitting  of  mathematical  expression,  may  thereby 
be  brought  into  order,  subjected  to  the  intellectual  law. 
It  is  not  long  since  the  activities  of  the  living  organism 
seemed  hopelessly  incoherent  and  unorderable;  but  we 
have  succeeded  and  we  are  succeeding  in  dealing  with  them. 
And  now  still  later  the  processes  and  conditions  of  in- 
dividual and  social  experience  are  being  brought  into  some 
sort  of  coherence  and  understanding.  It  is  true  that  the 
work  has  only  just  been  begun  —  but  it  has  been  begun, 
and  no  one  can  pretend  to  understand  the  thought  of  his 
time  who  does  not  know  what  is  being  done  and  what 
remains  to  be  done  in  this  field.  If  the  college  cannot  give 
our  boys  an  acquaintance  with  this  task  and  these  achieve- 
ments, if  it  cannot  arouse  a  vital  interest  in  the  intellectual 
struggle  upon  which  we  have  entered,  it  will  fail  in  one  of 
its  most  obvious  and  compelling  duties.  My  own  opinion 
is  that  however  difficult  the  task,  our  students  should  be 
set  to  it  at  the  beginning  of  the  college  course  and  should 
be  kept  at  it  so  long  as,  in  college  or  out  of  it,  the  oppor- 
tunities for  study  are  still  open  to  them. 


II 


A  CURRICULUM  FOR  A  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

WITH  your  permission,  I  should  like  to  suggest,  in 
quite  irresponsible  fashion,  the  direction  in  which 
it  seems  to  me  Amherst  may  wisely  continue  her 
development.  I  am  sure  that,  with  the  other  liberal  colleges 
of  her  kind  and  time,  she  stands  at  the  parting  of  the  ways 
and  that  critical  problems  are  awaiting  her  decision.  For  the 
sake  of  stimulating  the  friends  of  the  college,  students, 
alumni,  faculty,  and  trustees,  to  the  discussion  of  principles 
and  methods,  may  I  sketch  here  the  outline  of  a  curriculum 
concerning  which  I  have  already  had  much  discussion  with 
colleagues  and  students.  The  plan  is  offered  not  as  a  final 
solution  of  our  curriculum  problems,  but  as  a  preliminary 
statement  of  a  point  of  view  which,  if  valid,  may  perhaps 
receive  more  adequate  expression  in  other  ways.  It  is  offered 
not  for  adoption  but  for  criticism  and  consideration. 


Freshman  Year 

Sophomore  Year 

Junior  Year 

Senior  Year 

Social  and  Economic 
Institutions 

Mathematics  and 
Formal  Logic 

Science 
English 
Foreign  Language 

European  History 
Philosophy 

Science 
Literature 
Elective 

American  History 

History  of 
Thought 

Intellectual  and 
Moral  Problems 

Elective  Major 

Elective  Minor 
Elective  Minor 

As  an  invitation  to  discussion,  I  should  like  to  say  a  few 
words  about  several  features  of  the  plan  as  it  is  proposed. 

138 


A  CURRICULUM  FOR  A  LIBERAL  COLLEGE    139 

I  will  describe  briefly  each  of  the  courses,  indicate  their 
relations  to  each  other,  attempt  to  formulate  the  under- 
lying principles,  and  then  speak  of  some  advantages  which 
might  follow  if  the  plan  were  adopted. 

In  the  list  of  courses  as  given  those  above  the  lines  are 
required,  five  in  the  Freshman,  four  in  the  Sophomore, 
two  in  the  Junior,  and  one  in  the  Senior  year.  The  courses 
below  the  lines  are  elective,  one  for  Sophomores,  two  for 
Juniors,  and  one  for  Seniors.  In  the  Freshman  year,  the 
courses  in  foreign  language  and  mathematics  and  logic 
should  be  given  more  time  value  than  the  other  courses  of 
the  same  year.  In  the  Junior  year,  each  course  counts  for 
a  quarter  of  a  year's  work.  In  the  Senior  year,  the  required 
course  takes  one  third  of  the  time  and  the  elective  major 
two  thirds  of  the  time. 

The  course  in  social  and  economic  institutions  has  already 
been  explained.  It  should  serve  as  an  introduction  to  the 
humanistic  sciences.  The  student  should  be  made  aware 
of  the  situations  and  the  institutions  with  which  those 
sciences  are  dealing  and  should  be  made  ready  to  attempt 
an  understanding  of  what  they  have  done  and  are  doing. 

The  course  in  mathematics  and  formal  logic  should  give 
instruction  and  practice  in  deductive  thinking.  Mathe- 
matics and  formal  logic  are  alike  interested  in  the  endeavor 
to  find  forms  of  expression  by  the  use  of  which  meanings  may 
be  made  more  exact  and  more  explicit.  They  alike  recog- 
nize the  fact  that  our  deductive  thinking  is  engaged  in  the 
task  of  giving  to  thought  contents  new  forms  of  expression 
by  which  they  may  become  better  understood.  In  the  course 
in  question,  the  student  should  be  instructed  concerning 
this  characteristic  function  of  mental  activity  and  should 
then  be  given  practice  in  it.  In  geometry  he  will  see  how 
in  the  field  of  space  relations  meaning  is  developed  by  new 
modes  of  expression;  algebra  will  give  skill  in  the  use  of 
symbolic  representations  of  various  types;  formal  logic 
will  build  up  the  technique  of  accurate  and  coherent  ex- 
pression by  means  of  words.  Such  a  course,  following  the 


I4o  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

mathematics  of  the  preparatory  school,  should  give  a  student 
some  acquaintance  with  and  command  of  the  formal  pro- 
cedure of  thinking. 

The  Freshman  and  Sophomore  years  have  each  a  course 
in  physical  and  natural  science.  My  own  preference  would 
be  that  in  each  year  two  sciences  be  given  (a  semester  for 
each),  so  that  for  all  students  there  would  be  some  knowl- 
edge of  physics,  chemistry,  geology,  and  biology.  For  any 
proper  understanding  of  the  conditions  of  human  living  all 
four  of  these  studies  seem  very  desirable.  My  scientific 
friends,  with  their  ideals  of  thoroughness  and  close  contact 
with  the  facts,  tell  me  that  half  year  courses  in  science  can 
give  only  smatterings  and  hazy  outlines  and  are  hardly 
worth  offering.  On  this  point  I  am  inclined  to  differ  with 
them.  What  we  want  for  our  required  courses  is  not  the 
technique  of  investigation,  but  an  account  of  the  results  so 
far  as  they  are  significant  for  life  and  for  knowledge  as  a 
whole.  Such  results  can  be  given  in  words  and,  if  properly 
organized,  it  would  seem  that  they  might  be  given  in  such 
form  as  to  remain  a  valuable  and  significant  possession.  If 
my  friends  are  right,  we  might  have  to  offer  students  in 
one  year  a  choice  between  physics  and  chemistry,  and  in 
the  other  between  geology  and  biology.  If  they  are  wrong, 
we  might  give  all  four  sciences  in  outline  and  in  relation 
during  the  two  years. 

With  regard  to  the  teaching  of  English,  one  hesitates 
at  the  present  time  to  dogmatise.  Our  teachers  of  English 
are  attempting  to  carry  on  and  to  combine  two  processes, 
each  of  which  is  by  itself  sufficiently  difficult.  They  are 
seeking  to  make  sure  that  students  can  express  themselves 
in  simple  grammatical  form.  They  are  also  offering  to 
students  an  opportunity  to  enjoy  the  experience  of  literary 
appreciation.  One  can  only  say  that  to  these  tasks  and 
their  combination  must  be  set  the  strongest  and  best 
equipped  teachers  who  are  available. 

The  course  in  foreign  language  should  be  a  continuation 
of  an  advanced  language  presented  for  admission.  It 


A  CURRICULUM  FOR  A  LIBERAL  COLLEGE    141 

should  give  to  the  student  the  experience  of  really  reading 
a  language  other  than  his  own.  As  noted  before,  it  should 
have  more  time  value  than  is  now  commonly  allowed  for 
a  three  hour  course.  Like  the  English  course,  it  should 
have  value  in  content  as  well  as  in  the  structure  of  the 
language  concerned.  As  it  is  to  continue  a  subject  pre- 
sented for  admission,  one  cannot  determine  its  content 
without  determining  also  the  admission  requirements. 
My  own  suggestion  would  be  that  we  require  for  admission 
six  year  courses  in  language,  three  in  an  ancient  language 
and  three  in  a  modern  language.  We  could  then  require 
that  the  ancient  language  be  continued  in  the  Freshman 
year,  and  that  the  student  be  required  to  show  by  exami- 
nation his  reading  command  of  the  modern  language. 
Before  this  matter  is  decided,  however,  we  need  more 
information  concerning  the  value  of  different  entrance 
subjects.  Such  information  we  hope  to  secure  before 
another  year  has  passed. 

In  the  Sophomore  year,  European  history  traces  through 
the  civilization  of  Europe  the  development  of  the  institu- 
tions revealed  in  the  course  in  social  and  economic  institu- 
tions. The  course  in  philosophy,  chiefly  logic  and  ethics, 
studies  the  human  motives  and  beliefs  which  underlie  those 
institutions  and  have  found  expression  in  them.  The  work 
in  science  continues  that  already  begun.  In  literature, 
the  student  continues  one  of  the  literatures  of  the  Freshman 
year,  English  or  foreign,  according  to  his  choice. 

In  the  Junior  year,  the  first  course  continues  the  historical 
study  from  Europe  into  the  development  of  our  own  insti- 
tutions. Meanwhile,  the  history  of  thought  attempts  to 
reveal  in  their  successive  forms  the  beliefs  and  purposes 
which  have  dominated  our  civilization^  and  correlates  with 
these  the  scientific  interpretations  and,  so  far  as  possible, 
the  literary  representations  in  which  human  life  has  been 
portrayed.  This  course  would  be,  in  its  own  measure, 
an  account  of  the  intellectual  and  moral  elements  in  the 
development  of  our  civilization. 


I42  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

In  the  Senior  year,  the  student  would  be  expected  to 
bring  together  the  contributions  of  the  two  required  Junior 
courses  in  order  that  he  may  face  the  characteristic  and 
significant  problems  of  his  time  and  people.  The  study 
of  European  and  American  institutions  in  their  develop- 
ment, and  of  the  thought  elements  underlying  and  deter- 
mining them,  should  have  prepared  him  to  form  some 
opinions  of  his  own  about  human  living.  I  do  not  mean 
that  he  should  be  given  a  course  in  dogmatic  citizenship, 
but  I  do  mean  that  the  religious,  moral,  political,  social  and 
economic  issues  of  our  day  should  be  so  presented  and 
interpreted  that  a  young  man  may  begin  to  understand 
them,  may  begin  to  define  his  own  thoughts  on  human 
problems  in  relation  to  the  thoughts  which  other  men  have 
made  and  are  making.  Such  a  course  could  not  be  given 
by  one  teacher.  It  would  be  necessary  to  place  in  charge 
of  it  a  number  of  teachers  who  might  supplement  each 
other,  teaching  by  their  differences  as  well  as  by  their 
agreements. 

On  the  elective  side,  the  plan  allows  one  free  elective  in 
the  Sophomore  year  in  order  that  a  student  may  be  free  to 
carry  on  some  special  interest  from  the  Freshman  to  the 
later  years.  Thus  he  may  take  a  second  language  or  con- 
tinue his  mathematics,  or  go  on  with  his  work  in  some  other 
department  within  which  his  special  interest  lies.  In  the 
Junior  year,  which  is  divided  into  four  courses,  two  of  these 
are  open  to  choice  without  limitation.  In  the  two  earlier 
years,  all  the  different  lines  of  study  have  been  opened  up 
and  the  student  may  now  select  two  of  them  for  careful 
and  detailed  study  under  close  supervision  and  in  small 
classes.  In  the  Senior  year,  the  major,  taking  two  thirds 
of  the  student's  time,  must  be  a  continuation  of  one  of  the 
four  subjects  of  the  Junior  year.  Here  again  the  work 
would  be  done  in  small  groups  in  close  association  with  a 
teacher  or  group  of  teachers.  In  the  two  years  taken 
together  it  would  amount  practically  to  a  full  year's  work 
in  a  subject  to  which  the  student  had  already  been  intro- 


A  CURRICULUM  FOR  A  LIBERAL  COLLEGE    143 

duced  in  the  early  part  of  his  college  life.  If  the  student 
has  within  him  capacity  for  any  special  interest  he  should 
find  in  such  genuine  "majoring"  at  the  end  of  his  college 
course,  conditions  favorable  for  awakening  the  interest  to 
full  activity  and  for  developing  power  in  furthering  it  so 
far  as  we  may  fairly  expect  it  to  go  during  the  undergraduate 
years. 

Before  proceeding  to  speak  of  the  relations  of  courses, 
may  I  stop  to  note  the  omission  of  two  subjects  for  which 
some  provision  must  be  made.  I  refer  to  the  teaching  of 
the  fine  arts,  including  music,  and  to  practice  in  public 
speech.  These  subjects  are  left  out  because  the  plan  is  as 
yet  a  mere  sketch.  In  any  definite  scheme  they  must  be 
firmly  established  in  some  way  or  other. 

With  regard  to  relations  between  courses,  may  I  call 
attention  to  the  continuity  in  the  series  of  required  courses 
and  in  the  sequence  of  elective  courses  as  well.  The  re- 
quired studies  running  through  the  four  years  form  one 
continuous  intellectual  inquiry.  The  courses  in  history 
treat  of  the  institutions  revealed  in  the  Freshman  year, 
and  the  Senior  course  discusses  the  problems  for  which 
history  has  furnished  material.  The  Freshman  courses  in 
institutions  and  mathematics  and  logic  lead  directly  into 
the  study  of  logic  and  ethics,  which  in  turn  leads  into  the 
history  of  thought,  which  again  gives  another  body  of  con- 
tent for  the  Senior  course  in  problems.  The  courses  in 
science  lead  into  the  history  of  thought,  and  the  studies 
in  literature  give  content  for  both  historical  subjects  of  the 
Junior  year.  In  the  Senior  year,  the  entire  curriculum, 
with  its  information,  its  problems,  its  methods,  should  be 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  interpretation  of  a  group  of  prob- 
lems which  are  all  bound  together  by  their  common  human 
interest.  In  the  field  of  electives,  the  same  relationship 
holds  so  far  as  possible.  The  Senior  major  continues  one 
of  the  Junior  subjects,  which  is  itself  a  continuation  of  work 
done  in  the  earlier  years. 

It  would  be  essential  to  the  working  out  of  such  a  plan 


144  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

that  the  college  student  should,  at  the  beginning  of  his 
studies,  be  informed  of  the  general  plan  and  outline  of  the 
curriculum.  To  the  Freshman  class  there  should  be  given 
a  series  of  lectures  which  would  sketch  the  course  of  study 
as  a  whole,  giving  its  essential  purposes  and  determining 
the  relations  of  each  study  to  the  other  studies  and  the 
curriculum  of  which  they  are  parts.  Such  lectures  if 
properly  given  would  illumine  and  direct  the  instruction 
and  study  from  beginning  to  end.  They  would  provide 
a  plan  which  every  teacher  and  every  pupil  might  be  ex- 
pected to  keep  in  mind. 

With  respect  to  inclusiveness,  the  required  content  is 
intended  to  be  representative  of  the  system  of  human 
knowledge  as  a  whole.  Recognizing  the  limitation  of  time 
in  four  years  of  undergraduate  study,  it  attempts  to  select 
the  significant  intellectual  inquiries  and  to  so  relate  them  as 
to  keep  the  unity  of  the  whole  while  establishing  acquaint- 
ance with  the  parts.  The  task  is  not  an  easy  one  and  there 
is  wide  room  for  differences  of  opinion.  But  to  do  it  in 
some  way  is  better  than  not  to  do  it  at  all.  One  can  simply 
formulate  one's  notion  and  then  submit  it  to  friends  and 
colleagues  for  rending  and  reconstruction. 

The  fundamental  purpose  of  the  plan  is  to  ensure  that 
every  student  who  receives  a  liberal  degree  shall  have  gone 
through  an  intellectual  procedure  by  which  a  liberal  educa- 
tion may  be  secured.  We  are  not  content  with  the  assur- 
ance that  he  has  been  for  four  years  in  an  institution  within 
which  the  opportunities  of  liberal  culture  are  available.  We 
prefer  an  arrangement  by  which  those  opportunities  are 
made  requirements.  Then,  recognizing  the  artificiality  of 
our  tests,  we  may  teach  and  test  in  the  hope  that  what 
is  intended  may  be  accomplished. 

The  same  principle  may  be  stated  by  saying  that  the 
liberal  college  has  a  definite  intellectual  mission  and  it  has 
no  right  to  give  its  degrees  unless  that  mission  has  been 
achieved.  It  is  not  enough  that  a  student  know  a  little  of 
everything;  so  far  as  it  is  possible,  he  should  be  given  a 


A  CURRICULUM  FOR  A  LIBERAL  COLLEGE    145 

knowledge  of  the  world,  so  extensive  and  so  unified  that  by 
means  of  it  he  may  get  a  fair  understanding  of  human 
experience.  It  is  not  enough  that  he  should  have  studied 
one  subject  three  years;  he  should  go  into  one  field  and 
learn  how  thinking  is  done  in  that  field.  I  would  define 
the  intellectually  educated  man  as  one  who  can  bring  a 
unified  interpretation  of  the  world  to  bear  on  the  problems 
of  human  experience,  and  who  also  appreciates  how  thought 
has  achieved  those  results  which  have  made  his  interpre- 
tation possible. 

From  the  arrangement  of  courses  here  proposed  there 
would  follow  a  number  of  advantages  which  are  perhaps 
worthy  of  mention. 

One  discouraging  feature  of  our  present  work  is  that, 
each  course  being  regarded  as  complete  in  itself,  the  student 
holds  himself,  or  is  held  by  us,  responsible  for  being  in- 
formed concerning  its  content  only  on  the  day  of  exami- 
nation. If  at  some  later  time  we  should  call  on  him  for 
evidence  of  his  knowledge  of  it,  he  would  accuse  us  of 
injustice  and  violation  of  all  the  presuppositions  on  which 
his  curriculum  is  built.  But  in  the  plan  proposed,  each 
course  given  is  itself  an  examination  in  the  courses  which 
have  been  given  before.  If  the  teaching  be  properly  done, 
it  will  be  taken  for  granted  that  the  results  of  previous 
courses  are  actually  available  for  use,  and  if  they  are  not 
available,  then  the  work  of  the  later  year  cannot  be 
properly  done.  It  would  be  interesting  to  see  in  this  way 
each  professor  examining  the  teachers  who  have  preceded 
him  as  well  as  the  students  immediately  under  his 
charge. 

Again,  this  arrangement  would  make  it  possible  to  take 
cognizance  of  differences  in  content  and  method  between 
courses.  As  we  have  spread  before  students  lists  of  courses 
and  have  invited  them  to  choose,  we  have  inevitably  come 
to  regard  every  course  on  the  list  as  a  substitute  for  every 
other,  and,  therefore,  as  equivalent  to  it.  The  inevitable 
result  of  this  has  been  the  establishment  of  false  uniformities 


146  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

in  methods  of  teaching.  The  teacher  of  literature  and  the 
teacher  of  mathematics  are  each  expected  to  take  the  same 
amount  of  the  student's  time  for  study,  to  require  classroom 
attendance  for  the  same  number  of  hours  per  week,  to  give 
the  same  kind  of  tests  and  examinations,  to  require  the 
same  sort  of  "scholarly"  work  —  to  make  sure  that  the 
record  of  intellectual  achievement  in  one  course  is  a  fair 
substitute  for  the  record  in  another.  But  I  think  it  is 
obvious  that  such  uniformities  and  substitutions  are  alto- 
gether illusory.  Valuable  instruction  may  be  given  in 
subjects  which  admit  of  little  work  on  which  the  student 
can  be  "tested."  And  there  are  other  lines  of  study  in 
which  the  teacher's  activity  may  be  practically  limited  to 
examining  what  the  student  has  done.  Some  courses 
should  claim  little  of  a  student's  time  outside  the  classroom; 
others  can  make  use  of  far  greater  assignments  than  are 
now  possible  under  our  system  of  equivalents.  But  if  we 
were  teaching  under  such  a  system  of  requirements  as  is 
here  proposed,  the  total  demand  upon  the  student  might 
be  compounded  of  whatever  parts  might  seem  best.  One 
would  give  students  work  to  do,  not  to  keep  them  busy, 
but  because  the  work  is  worth  doing.  And  if  one  had  noth- 
ing for  them  to  do  at  any  specific  time,  one  could  arrange 
with  one's  colleagues  to  fill  up  the  gap. 

Still  another  advantage  for  the  teacher  would  appear 
in  the  uniformity  of  his  class.  Under  the  usual  elective 
scheme,  one  may  find  Sophomores,  Juniors,  and  Seniors 
in  the  same  classroom.  And  again,  within  each  of  these 
groups  there  may  be  every  possible  variation  of  previous 
study  and  preparation.  It  follows  from  this  that  in  the 
conduct  of  the  work  neither  teacher  nor  pupil  can  take 
anything  for  granted.  And  in  this  way  it  comes  to  pass  that 
each  subject  is  taught  without  regard  to  any  other,  as  a 
thing  complete  in  itself,  except  as  each  teacher  attempts  by 
way  of  introduction  some  hasty  establishment  of  relations. 
This  may  be  the  teaching  of  "subjects"  but  it  does  not 
give  knowledge  in  any  genuine  or  fundamental  sense. 


A  CURRICULUM  FOR  A  LIBERAL  COLLEGE    147 

On  the  side  of  the  students,  the  plan  has  an  advantage 
which  is  very  important.  It  would  unite  all  the  college 
in  a  common  intellectual  enterprise.  The  modern  college 
has  lost  for  its  study  and  teaching  the  tremendous  social 
sanction  which  in  the  old  college  was  given  by  the  sense 
of  intellectual  solidarity.  Under  the  elective  scheme,  no 
subject  is  essential.  Why  study  physics  hard  when  other 
students  are  getting  an  education  without  it?  Why,  if 
you  are  seeking  for  a  liberal  education,  devote  yourself  to 
a  subject,  without  which  other  men  are  reaching  the  same 
goal  for  which  you  strive?  The  argument  is  bad  but  none 
the  less  convincing.  But  we  must  bring  back  to  our  stu- 
dents the  conviction  that  they  have  a  common  intellectual 
task,  that  the  college  has  a  definite  and  compelling  mission, 
to  which  as  members  of  the  group  they  owe  loyal  and 
enthusiastic  devotion.  Let  us  say  it  again  —  our  work  is 
as  definite  as  that  of  technical  or  professional  school;  it 
can  rightly  claim  equal  earnestness  and  greater  eagerness 
and  enthusiasm. 

On  the  purely  mechanical  side,  the  plan  has  the  advan- 
tages of  simplicity.  It  reduces  the  number  of  courses  and 
so  makes  much  more  easy  the  arrangement  of  schedule 
and  all  related  matters.  It  would  enable  us  to  adjust  the 
sizes  of  divisions  for  instruction  on  some  reasonable  basis. 
At  present  the  size  of  a  class  is  commonly  dependent  simply 
on  the  number  of  students  electing  the  subject.  But  if 
courses  were  required  of  all  students,  divisions  could  be 
arranged  in  each  case  to  suit  the  nature  of  the  work  done. 
One  of  our  popular  fallacies  is  that  there  is  a  certain  proper 
size  for  a  college  class.  But  it  is  clearly  untrue.  If  a 
teacher  is  merely  lecturing  or  reading  there  is  virtually  no 
limit  of  numbers  except  the  extent  of  the  teacher's  personal 
power.  If  one  is  directing  a  piece  of  investigation,  each 
student  must  be  taken  separately.  And  between  these 
limits  there  are  many  adjustments  to  be  made  varying  with 
the  nature  of  the  subject  and  the  method  of  the  teacher.  It 
would  conduce  both  to  economy  and  to  efficiency  if  these 


I48  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

adjustments  could  be  made  by  choice  and  not  by  the  mere 
chance  of  student  election. 

My  impression  is  that  in  every  phase  of  our  intellectual 
work  teachers  and  pupils  alike  would  be  helped  by  greater 
definiteness  in  understanding  of  the  work  in  which  we  are 
engaged.  It  would  help  us  all  to  realize  that  we  are  not 
simply  giving  or  taking  courses,  but  are  engaged  in  a  process 
of  education.  In  the  face  of  a  real  unity  in  that  process, 
many  of  our  distinctions,  in  the  ranks  of  the  faculty  as  well 
as  among  the  students,  would  seem  arbitrary  and  artificial. 

On  the  elective  side,  the  plan  would  have  two  advan- 
tages. It  would  put  an  end  to  the  mere  gathering  up  of 
unrelated  courses  from  which  can  be  gained  little  more  than 
a  smattering  of  knowledge.  For  this  it  would  substitute 
the  choice  of  a  definite  intellectual  field  and  would  try  to 
ensure  that  in  this  field  the  student  should  do  a  piece  of 
thorough,  sustained,  and  systematic  study.  Such  a  "major- 
ing" in  the  Junior  and  Senior  years  might  be  expected  to 
establish  (i)  habits  of  intellectual  work,  and  (2)  an  intel- 
lectual interest  which,  whether  or  not  sustained  by  pro- 
fessional activity,  would  remain  as  a  permanent  element  of 
culture  and  inquiry. 

As  I  leave  this  proposed  plan  for  your  consideration,  I 
must  apologize  for  saying  so  much  concerning  its  supposed 
advantages.  May  I  say  again  that  the  plan  is  presented 
simply  for  criticism,  and  its  claims  have  been  set  forth  in 
the  hope  that  counter  claim  and  attack  may  reveal  its 
defects.  The  plan  does  express  certain  principles  in  which 
I  believe.  But  those  principles  are  open  to  challenge. 
And  even  if  they  were  valid,  it  is  clear  that  this  embodiment 
of  them  is  a  mere  sketch  which  can  become  a  plan  only  as 
it  is  torn  apart,  put  together  again  in  new  forms  and  with 
needed  supplementation,  subjected  to  all  the  generous  in- 
terpretation and  criticism  which  men  give  each  other  when 
they  are  working  together  in  a  common  cause  which  is 
more  important  to  them  than  is  their  own  discussion  of  it. 


Ill 

A  REORGANIZATION  OF  THE  COLLEGE 
CURRICULUM 

THE  longer  one  attempts  to  devise  a  liberal  training  by 
the  additions  and  combinations  of  courses,  the  more 
one  becomes  convinced  that  addition  is  an  illusion 
and  that  courses  are  the  chimeras  of  an  imagination  pervert- 
ed by  the  categories  of  mechanics.  Twenty  courses  do  not 
make  a  college  education  any  more  than  twenty  legs  make 
a  man,  or  twenty  heads,  or  even  ten  hearts,  two  legs  and 
eight  fingers.  And  in  the  same  way  three  courses  do  not 
make  an  intellectual  interest,  an  experience  of  the  actual 
process  of  the  working  mind.  Something  is  wrong  with  the 
terms,  something  is  radically  wrong  with  the  process  of 
combining  them. 

What  is  the  trouble?  It  seems  to  me  very  clear  that  the 
concepts  of  quantity  and  measurement  have  wrecked  the 
organic  unity  of  the  college  course.  In  making  elective 
courses  we  have  felt  the  genuine  need  of  uniformity  and  so 
have  established  units  in  terms  of  which  to  measure.  And 
having  established  our  separate  units  of  subjects,  courses, 
departments,  we  have  felt  free  to  pluck  them  out  of  the 
living  organism  one  by  one,  to  substitute  one  for  another, 
and  then  to  put  them  back  supposing  the  life  process  to  be 
still  rushing  on  in  spite  of  all  our  interruptions. 

If  this  be  true,  then  no  re-sorting  of  the  courses  will  gain 
the  ends  we  seek.  Rather,  it  seems  to  me,  we  must  re- 
think our  terms  and  reconsider  our  procedure.  I  am 
inclined,  therefore,  to  recommend  to  the  Trustees  and 
Faculty  of  the  college  a  fairly  fundamental  transformation 
of  its  organization.  You  will  not  find  in  this  suggestion 

149 


1 5o  THE  LIBERAL  COLLEGE 

the  slightest  hint  of  any  change  of  purpose.  You  will, 
however,  find  a  strong  conviction  that  the  college  organiza- 
tion in  which  that  purpose  finds  expression  is  quite  inade- 
quate. I  am  proposing,  therefore,  that  a  new  one  take  its 
place. 

As  we  have  postulated  two  aims  in  the  defining  of  a 
liberal  education,  so  I  would,  in  good  mechanical  form, 
propose  the  division  of  the  college  into  two  separate  colleges, 
a  Junior  and  a  Senior  College.  And  if  it  be  at  once  retorted 
that  this  is  a  vicious  mechanical  separation  in  purpose  and 
in  method,  then  I  would  reply  that  the  division  into  two, 
if  discreetly  made,  is  not  so  bad  as  a  division  into  twenty, 
and  further  that,  in  spite  of  bad  appearances,  this  division 
of  ours  is  not  to  be  mechanical  —  never  shall  we  take  these 
colleges  apart  or  try  to  substitute  them  for  one  another  in 
any  known  relationship. 

But  now  to  state  our  plan  in  sober,  honest  terms!  Our 
purpose  is,  we  say,  to  set  men  on  the  road  toward  liberal 
education.  And  liberal  education  seems  to  have  two 
aspects:  (i)  that  of  general  apprehension  of  the  culture  of 
one's  race  and  (2)  that  of  feeling  of  the  actual  process  of  the 
mind  by  which  that  culture  has  been  made  and  still  is  in 
the  making.  These  aims  are  always  present  wherever  a 
liberal  college  is.  But  they  are  often  obscure  in  content  and 
so  hazy  in  outline  as  to  be  mistaken  one  for  the  other.  Men 
say  "any  course  of  study  properly  pursued  is  liberal"  and 
so  they  take  some  ten  or  twenty  courses,  each  of  necessity 
improperly  pursued  and  call  the  process  liberal.  Men 
say  "a  little  of  everything  and  everything  of  something  — 
that  gives  a  liberal  education."  But  they  forget  that 
knowledge  when  made  up  of  "everythings"  and  "some- 
things "  is  not  real  knowledge  at  all  —  not  knowledge  in 
the  sense  of  wisdom  or  of  understanding,  nor  even  knowl- 
edge in  the  actual  process  of  its  making. 

It  seems  to  me  essential  that  these  two  aims  should  be 
kept  clear  and  kept  apart  for  fear  that  either  may  be  lost 
or  either  substituted  for  the  other.  I  would  propose, 


REORGANIZATION  —  COLLEGE  CURRICULUM    151 

therefore,  that  we  establish  them  and  build  them  into  the 
very  structure  of  the  college  course.  Let  us  have  two 
colleges  instead  of  one,  or  better  two  in  one,  the  first  ex- 
plicitly devoted  to  the  general  aim,  the  second,  in  greater 
part  at  least,  given  up  to  special  studies,  and  both  together 
mastered  by  the  common  aim  of  trying  to  understand  and 
share  the  labor  and  ecstacy  of  human  knowledge  and 
human  apprehension. 

How  shall  it  be  done?  In  its  most  external  aspect  the 
college  is,  of  course,  an  institution  which,  having  instructed 
students,  or  perhaps  not  having  instructed  them,  examines 
them  in  order  to  determine  whether  or  not  to  give  them  a 
degree  which  certifies  that  they  are,  in  some  sense  agreed 
upon,  educated  men.  In  this  external  sense,  one  college  is 
one  set  of  examinations  with  all  that  thereunto  belongs. 
If  then  we  should  establish  two  examinations,  two  sets  of 
tests,  we  should  in  this  external  sense  divide  the  four  year 
college  into  two  parts,  each  of  two  years.  From  this 
would  follow  various  results  as  to  our  methods  of  teaching, 
methods  of  study,  methods  of  life.  According  as  men  are 
to  be  examined  so  will  their  modes  of  living  be.  Two  aims, 
two  sets  of  examinations;  hence  two  colleges  —  that  is 
the  program. 

I  would  propose  then  that  at  the  end  of  the  sophomore 
year  we  establish  a  set  of  tests  or  one  comprehensive  test 
to  determine  whether  or  not  in  their  two  years  of  college 
work  our  students  have  been  making  headway  toward 
intelligence,  toward  culture,  toward  an  apprehension  of 
human  knowledge  as  a  whole.  And  at  the  end  of  the 
senior  year  we  should  have  a  second  test  which,  taking 
the  first  for  granted,  should  try  to  discover  what  students 
know  of  some  one  field  of  knowledge,  what  work  is  done 
within  it  and  what  it  means.  Passing  the  first  examination 
would  give  admission  to  the  Senior  College.  Passing  the 
senior  test  would  qualify  a  student  for  his  degree. 

It  would  be  essential,  I  think,  that  such  examinations  be 
set,  not  by  the  teachers  who  have  given  the  instruction  but 


1 52  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

by  an  examining  board  appointed  for  the  purpose.  Teachers 
would  still  continue  to  give  their  tests  at  the  endings  of 
courses,  and  passing  one's  courses  might  be  made  a  pre- 
requisite for  admission  to  the  general  examination.  And 
the  Board  of  Examiners  might  perhaps  include  some  of  the 
teachers  of  the  college  whose  work  is  being  examined. 
But  in  principle  it  seems  to  me  courses  and  examinations 
should  be  kept  far  apart.  The  Board  should  set  its  tests 
not  on  the  basis  of  courses  taken  but  by  the  guidance  of  an 
end  to  be  achieved,  a  type  of  education  to  be  realized.  We 
should  examine  the  student,  not  his  knowledge  of  the 
courses  he  has  taken. 

I  should  like  now  to  suggest  some  of  the  advantages 
which  it  seems  to  me  such  an  arrangement  would  bring 
about  in  the  two  colleges  which  are  established  by  it. 


THE   JUNIOR   COLLEGE 

The  first  advantage  of  the  arrangement  in  the  Junior 
College  would  be  the  clarifying  and  validating  of  what  the 
college  community  means  by  culture.  It  would  give  to  the 
younger  members  of  the  community  a  compelling  sense  of 
something  that  must  be  done,  some  quality  that  must  be 
taken  on,  some  power  that  must  be  gained,  some  sensitive- 
ness that  must  be  won.  There  is  now  no  such  compelling 
sense  of  common  purpose  and  requirement  in  our  conglom- 
erate arrangement  of  courses.  In  a  recent  pronunciamento 
of  the  largest  association  of  colleges  in  the  United  States, 
it  was  argued  that  since  the  concept  of  liberal  education 
has  no  generally  accepted  meaning,  a  given  subject  might 
just  as  well  be  included  in  the  college  course  as  any  other; 
apparently  no  one  could  tell  the  difference  in  the  result. 
And  if  our  college  authorities  are  in  a  haze  like  this,  there 
is  no  wonder  that  freshmen  and  sophomores  feel  no  com- 
pulsion of  a  clear  and  definite  purpose  driving  them  on. 
But  we  must  have  just  that  to  make  our  college  work 
worth  while  —  a  recognition  by  us  all  that  there  are  certain 


REORGANIZATION  — COLLEGE  CURRICULUM    153 

things  which  one  must  know,  must  feel,  must  see,  must 
understand  if  he  desires  to  be  regarded  as  a  member  of  this 
community.  Unless  he  does  the  things  we  do  and  loves 
the  things  we  love,  he  is  not  one  of  us.  I  think  perhaps  we 
might  regard  the  Junior  College  examinations  as  a  matric- 
ulation test,  the  college  having  given  a  man  two  years  in 
which  to  show  that  he  may  rightly  claim  a  place  as  one  who 
is  her  own. 

And  may  I  hasten  to  say  that  the  merit  of  such  an  exami- 
nation as  this  would  lie  not  in  a  great  severity.  I  see 
no  reason  why  it  should  be  in  general  quality  harder  than 
any  of  the  tests  we  give  at  present.  The  elimination  of 
many  students  by  rigid  tests  might  easily  be  done.  But  I 
am  not  convinced  that  education  by  such  elimination  is  the 
thing  most  needed  in  the  American  colleges  just  now.  There 
would  be  much  to  be  gained  in  private  satisfaction  and  in 
high  quality  of  scholarly  achievement  by  the  elimination 
of  all  students  except  the  very  best.  But  that  is  not  the 
gain  most  sorely  needed  at  the  present  time.  Our  task, 
the  most  important  task,  is  that  of  taking  the  average 
American  boy  and  those  above  the  average  and  trying  to 
make  of  them  men  of  cultured  power.  No  one  doubts  that 
this  work  can  be  done  for  boys  of  unusual  gifts  and  aptitude. 
But  what  can  be  done  in  general?  What  are  the  possi- 
bilities of  cultural  education  in  the  country  at  large?  That 
seems  to  me  the  urgent,  the  almost  terrifying  question, 
which  now  confronts  our  colleges  of  liberal  education. 
May  I  say  again,  therefore,  that  the  merit  of  this  examina- 
tion would  be,  not  in  this  or  that  established  degree  of 
severity,  but  in  the  setting  of  a  standard  as  such,  in  the 
making  clear  that  "liberal"  has  a  meaning  which  cuts  like 
steel  between  the  groups  of  those  who  are  and  those  who  are 
not  liberal  sophomores. 

At  this  point  there  is  a  question  which  I  know  is  quite 
inevitable.  "Upon  what  subjects  will  you  examine  at  the 
end  of  the  sophomore  year?  The  student  has  passed  his 
courses  one  by  one  and  answered  questions  on  them.  Will 


I54  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

you  ask  further  questions  on  these  courses?  Will  your 
examination  mean  a  grand  and  general  review?"  May  I 
try  to  answer  the  question  in  two  parts,  distinguishing 
between  the  method  and  the  content  of  the  mind  with  which 
the  examination  is  to  deal? 

If  we  were  examining  the  intellectual  method  of  a  soph- 
omore to  see  what  sort  of  man  he  is  there  are,  I  think, 
seven  main  questions  which  we  should  like  to  ask: 

1.  Can  he  and  does  he  read  books? 

In  books  is  gathered  up  the  culture  and  knowledge 
of  the  race.  A  boy  who  has  not  learned  to  go  to 
them,  to  live  in  them,  to  understand  their  meanings, 
is  not,  in  method  at  least,  upon  the  great  highroad 
of  education. 

2.  Can  he  express  his  own  thoughts  in  writing? 

3.  Can  he  speak  clearly  and  accurately? 

4.  Can  he  listen  to  and  understand  another's  speech? 

5.  Has  he  a  sense  of  fact,  distinguishing  from  facts  the 

mere  suggestions  which  are  not  yet  established? 

6.  Can  he  derive  an  implication,  draw  an  inference,  and 

see  what  implications  and  inferences  do  not  follow? 

7.  Has  he  a  sense  of  values  by  which  to  feel,  to  appreciate, 

to  recognize  the  things  worth  while  from  those  not 
worthy  of  our  choosing? 

These  are,  so  far  as  method  is  concerned,  the  questions 
I  should  like  to  ask  about  a  sophomore  seeking  admission 
to  a  Senior  College.  They  indicate  the  qualities  of  mind 
which  make  for  education.  If  one  has  gained  these  quali- 
ties I  think  we  might  admit  him  to  special  studies  of  a 
liberal  sort.  If  not,  it  is  a  sin  to  let  him  think,  however 
many  courses  he  has  passed,  that  he  is  on  the  road  to  liberal 
education. 

And  on  the  side  of  content  we  should  again  try  to  discover 
not  so  much  what  he  has  done  with  courses  as  what  courses, 
and  growing,  and  being  himself,  have  done  to  him,  what 
sort  of  man  he  is  becoming.  He  should  be  examined  upon 


REORGANIZATION  —  COLLEGE  CURRICULUM     155 

his  knowledge  of  literature,  of  natural  and  humanistic 
science,  should  be  expected  to  know  the  essential  things  in 
them  which  are  the  common  stock  of  men  who  are  trying 
to  interpret  the  world  in  which  they  live.  And  further,  he 
should  appreciate  and  understand  in  some  degree  the  pur- 
poses and  attitudes  of  men  of  letters,  of  scientists,  and  other 
thinkers,  should  know  what  tasks  they  undertake,  what 
methods  they  adopt,  what  results  they  have  achieved, 
and  what,  in  general  outline,  they  now  propose  to  do. 
Such  an  examination  would  require  knowledge  of  the 
subjects  taught  and  studied  in  the  courses,  but  it  would 
imply  as  well  a  student's  independent  reading  and  thinking 
about  his  subjects.  It  would,  I  think,  relegate  the  courses 
to  their  proper  place  as  moments  in  a  process  of  acquisition 
and  understanding,  a  process  which  every  student  must  be 
carrying  on  himself,  a  process  which  the  entire  community 
accepts  as  that  by  which  it  seeks  its  purpose  of  liberal 
education. 

Such  an  examination  could  not  be  given  by  one  man  nor 
in  one  day.  It  would  require  a  Board  of  Examiners  and 
would  inevitably  extend  over  two,  three,  or  four  weeks. 
It  would  include  written  examinations,  tests,  reports,  con- 
ferences. It  would  put  into  explicit  and  regular  form  such 
queries  and  associations  as  one  would  wish  to  have  with  a 
young  man  whose  intellectual  and  personal  quality  one 
might  wish  to  determine. 

But  now  to  return  to  the  listing  of  the  advantages  of 
the  Junior  College  examination!  We  have  said  that  over 
against  the  separate  courses  it  would  set  up  the  demand 
of  the  college  as  a  whole  for  Tightness  of  method  and  right- 
ness  of  content  in  the  teaching  and  study.  There  are  some 
other  advantages  perhaps  not  so  important. 

I  think  the  improvement  which  would  be  brought  to 
sophomore  study  would  be  very  great.  The  sophomore 
is  our  least  responsible  student.  The  enthusiasm  and  the 
docility,  perhaps,  of  the  freshman  year  have  somewhat 
lessened.  The  ending  of  the  college  course  is  still  three 


156  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

years  away.  The  goal  toward  which  it  leads  is  far  and 
indistinct.  The  sophomore  is  not  under  pressure.  Such 
a  test  as  we  have  outlined,  expressing  a  demand  that  must 
be  met  at  the  ending  of  the  year,  summing  up  the  activities 
of  the  two  years  in  one  compelling  purpose  and  interest  — 
such  a  test  would  in  my  opinion  transform  the  sophomore 
year.  If  so,  it  would  give  gain  where  now  our  loss  is  great- 
est. For  many  students  it  would  prevent  the  breaking 
down  of  the  college  course. 

Another  gain  would  be,  I  think,  that  of  placing  upon  the 
student  the  responsibility  for  the  getting  of  his  own  edu- 
cation. The  college  would  give  no  guarantee  that  courses 
would  cover  all  the  content  of  the  general  examination. 
In  the  last  resort,  a  student  should  find  out  for  himself 
what  demands  the  community  lays  upon  him;  he  should 
see  that  the  doing  of  daily  tasks  assigned  with  daily  regu- 
larity is  good  but  childish.  He  should  undertake  to  make 
himself  what  the  college  approves,  should  use  his  courses 
and  his  own  self-directed  studies  as  instruments  for  getting 
ready  for  the  tests  which  the  college  is  to  give  him.  In 
the  years  from  eighteen  to  twenty-three  one  should  be 
getting  something  of  the  self-reliance  of  a  man.  Our 
present  procedure  tends  too  much  to  keep  the  students 
young  in  will  as  well  as  in  intelligence. 

Still  another  gain  would  come  in  the  relations  of  teachers 
and  students.  The  present  process  tends  toward  being 
one  of  handing  out  and  then  demanding  that  the  thing 
received  be  given  back  again.  The  teacher  is  at  the  same 
time  examiner.  But  if  teacher  and  pupil  were  alike  pre- 
paring for  a  distant  test  which  neither  is  to  set,  there  would 
be  more  of  comradeship,  of  teaching  and  discipleship  than 
we  have  now. 

I  hesitate  to  speak  of  gains  so  far  as  teaching  is  concerned, 
for,  out  of  my  own  experience  if  in  no  other  way,  I  know 
how  jealous  teachers  are  of  their  independence,  how  much 
they  cherish  their  sovereign  right  to  teach  as  they  think 
best.  And  in  a  certain  field  of  their  relations  I  would  not 


REORGANIZATION  — COLLEGE  CURRICULUM    157 

yield  to  any  one  in  fighting  for  the  teacher's  independence. 
But  independence  at  this  other  point  of  which  we  speak 
is  nothing  else  than  anarchy.  May  I  then  suggest  two 
gains  that  might  be  won  for  teaching. 

First,  I  think  that  the  separate  courses  taken  by  any 
student  for  a  common  test  would  find  proper  relation  to 
each  other  just  through  their  common  relation  to  the 
common  test.  Each  course  would  find  itself  called  upon 
to  play  its  proper  part,  each  teacher  would  need  to  know 
what  other  teachers  were  doing,  each  would  assume  the 
work  of  other  teachers  as  joining  with  his  own.  At  present 
one  teacher  knows  another's  work  by  gossip,  often  by  idle, 
inaccurate  gossip  of  undergraduates,  hardly  ever,  if  at  all, 
by  genuine  conference.  A  demand  of  unified  knowledge 
accepted  as  the  standard  of  the  Junior  College,  enforced 
by  an  examination  for  membership  in  the  community, 
would  bring  about,  I  think,  some  understanding  of  the 
common  task  and  hence  relating  of  the  various  parts  within 
the  unity  to  which  they  all  belong. 

Another  gain  for  teachers  would  be  that  in  some  measure 
their  teaching  would  be  tested.  On  the  whole  it  is  not 
good  for  any  man  to  keep  on  doing  work  on  which  no  ade- 
quate judgment  of  approval  or  disapproval  is  ever  passed 
by  competent  authority.  The  tests  implied  in  student 
popularity,  in  the  number  of  student  elections  in  one's 
courses,  in  the  promotions  or  refusals  of  promotion  decreed 
by  trustees  and  presidents,  these  do  not  satisfy  our  college 
teachers.  They  have  many,  many  better  reasons  for  dis- 
gruntlement.  But  one  important  cause  of  discontent  lies, 
I  think,  just  in  the  lack  of  any  sense  of  right  appraisal  of 
their  work.  The  men  who  publish  find  their  judgment 
among  their  fellow  scholars  who  do  not  hesitate  to  speak 
their  minds.  But  men  who  teach  mark  their  own  teaching. 
It  takes  a  fair  amount  of  self-esteem  to  keep  one's  courage 
up.  And  so  I  think  that  an  objective  test  would  give  relief 
and  on  the  whole  much  satisfaction. 

I  am  sure  that  there  would  be  great  gain  in  the  separating 


I58  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

of  Freshmen,  Sophomores,  Juniors  and  Seniors  into  distinct 
groups  in  the  arrangement  of  their  courses.  If  only  Soph- 
mores  were  taking  the  courses  of  the  second  year,  and  if 
all  Sophomores  had  taken  the  same  or  equivalent  courses 
in  the  previous  year,  both  teacher  and  pupil  would  profit 
by  the  uniformity.  The  course  could  then  be  made  to 
lead  from  something  in  the  past  to  something  in  the  future. 
It  would  not  be  a  mere  detached  unmeaning  fragment 
beginning  from  so  many  different  sources  that  it  has  no 
common  source  at  all,  and  leading  into  so  many  different 
directions  that  the  word  direction  loses  its  meaning.  The 
course  would  tend  to  be  part  of  a  scheme  of  training,  a 
common  training  for  a  group  of  men  seeking  the  same  end, 
and  hence  following  the  same  road  and  traveling  together. 

There  would  be,  I  think,  distinct  gain  in  administration, 
in  the  simplification  of  arrangements  of  hours,  schedules, 
and  other  like  matters.  The  separation  of  Freshmen  and 
Sophomores  from  upperclassmen  in  class  enrollments  would 
give  a  genuine  gain.  If,  as  would  be  practically  certain, 
Freshmen  and  Sophomores  were  separated  from  each  other 
in  the  arranging  of  classes,  our  present  difficulties  as  to 
schedules  would  disappear.  Perhaps  in  this  way  the 
amount  of  administration  in  the  colleges  might  be  reduced. 
I  am  sure  that  very  much  of  the  time  of  administrative 
officers  is  spent  in  reconciling  the  conflicting  desires  of 
anxious  teachers.  Strangely  enough,  it  usually  seems  that 
they,  the  administrative  officers,  have  the  desires  from 
which  official  denials  spring.  But  in  any  case,  probably 
to  the  gratification  both  of  teachers  and  officers,  we  might 
in  this  way  diminish  administration. 

For  teachers  and  students  then  it  seems  to  me  the  pro- 
posal of  a  Junior  College  is  worth  considering.  It  would 
pledge  the  community  to  an  end  and  to  a  standard.  If 
successful,  it  would  make  the  concept  of  general  liberal 
education  a  definite  one.  That  concept  is  compelling 
enough  if  only  it  is  perceived  and  understood.  If  then,  as 
I  think  it  would,  this  proposed  arrangement  should  bring 


REORGANIZATION  —  COLLEGE  CURRICULUM    1 59 

our  common  purpose  into  clarity  and  definiteness,  it  would 
set  us  on  the  road  we  seek  and  I  am  inclined  to  think  that 
we  should  travel  it  in  gay  and  serious  fellowship. 


THE    SENIOR   COLLEGE 

The  determining  motive  of  the  Senior  College  would  be 
the  second  of  our  aims,  to  bring  a  student  into  actual  con- 
tact with  the  working  minds  by  which  the  knowledge  and 
apprehension  of  mankind  are  made.  This  opportunity 
would  be  open  to  men  coming  successfully  from  the  Junior 
College.  Here  they  would  find  a  greater  freedom,  greater 
responsibility,  and  more  urgent  obligations.  My  impres- 
sion is  that  corresponding  to  the  improvement  of  attitude 
in  Sophomore  year  would  come  a  definite  gain  for  Juniors 
and  Seniors,  first  from  the  sense  of  freedom  and  personal 
initiative  and  second  from  the  compulsion  of  the  higher 
intellectual  comradeship  into  which  they  are  received. 

In  the  Senior  College  a  very  considerable  part  of  the 
student's  time  would  be  given  to  one  major  interest.  What 
does  this  mean?  It  does  not  mean  that  the  work  would  be 
confined  within  what  we  now  call  a  department.  It  does 
mean  a  group  of  related  studies,  taken  from  several  depart- 
ments, but  all  bound  together  by  some  common  interest 
and  so  fusing  together  in  terms  of  some  central  inquiry 
or  investigation.  The  nature  of  this  would  of  course  vary 
with  the  field. 

It  does  not  mean  that  the  student  is  to  enter  a  profes- 
sional school  at  the  end  of  his  Sophomore  year.  The  col- 
lege has  given  very  few  professional  courses  in  the  past  and 
my  impression  is  that  it  will  give  fewer  rather  than  more 
of  them  in  the  future.  I  am  not  saying  that  a  student's 
choice  of  his  major  might  not  be  influenced  by  the  profession 
which  he  has  in  view.  Probably  in  many  cases  this  would 
happen.  But  I  do  mean  that  during  the  college  years  the 
organization  of  the  courses  will  be  in  terms  of  intellectual 
interests  and  problems,  not  in  terms  of  immediate  practical 


160  THE  LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

pursuits  for  which  specific  preparation  is  needed.  Here 
of  course  is  one  of  the  great  educational  issues  of  our  time 
which  I  must  not  stop  to  consider  at  present.  May  I  say 
simply  that  the  policy  of  the  college  thus  far  seems  clear 
and  definite  upon  the  issue;  we  are  a  non-professional 
college  —  but  very  practical. 

But  now  positively,  what  does  it  mean?  I  am  not  willing 
to  dogmatise  with  great  specification  until  we  have  had 
further  opportunity  to  examine  the  procedure  of  colleges 
in  which  like  experiments  have  been  made.  I  am  sure, 
however,  of  several  points.  First,  the  major  should  be  a 
course  of  study  arranged  under  the  direction  of  one  teacher 
or  a  small  group  of  teachers  in  related  fields.  Second,  it 
should  be  regarded,  not  as  a  group  of  lectures  or  courses  to 
be  taken,  but  as  a  study  or  reading  or  investigation  carried 
on  by  the  student,  to  which  the  lectures  of  teachers  contrib- 
ute so  far  as  may  be.  Third,  it  should  have  such  unity  as 
to  admit  of  a  single  test  upon  it  all  at  the  close  of  the  course. 
Fourth,  it  should  be  pursued  more  informally  than  our 
present  courses,  but  under  the  immediate  direction  of  some 
teacher,  acting  individually  or  as  representative  of  a  group. 
Fifth,  it  should  culminate  in  some  report,  some  thesis,  or 
record  of  investigation,  or  in  an  examination  which  should 
give  final  evidence  of  the  student's  ability  and  achievement. 
Sixth,  the  doing  of  satisfactory  work  in  such  a  major  field 
should  be  required  for  a  degree. 

There  are  two  beliefs  involved  in  this  proposal.  First, 
Juniors  or  Seniors  in  college  are  or  can  be  made  mature 
enough  in  mind  and  purpose  to  take  on  genuine  intellectual 
responsibilities;  it  is  a  sin  to  keep  them  children.  Second, 
such  intellectual  responsibility  calls  for  a  different,  a  more 
informal  relationship  between  teacher  and  pupil  than  is 
desirable  in  the  earlier  years. 

Such  a  majoring  plan  would  again  postulate  a  scheme  of 
independent  examination  for  the  testing  of  results.  There 
would  not  be,  of  course,  such  general  examining  as  that 
upon  the  work  of  the  Junior  College.  But  there  ought  to  be 


REORGANIZATION— COLLEGE  CURRICULUM    161 

in  each  field  the  submitting  of  the  evidence  of  the  student's 
work  to  some  independent  and  recognized  authority  in  that 
field  for  judgment  of  its  worth.  The  student  should  be 
informed  and  record  made  that  he  has  or  has  not  done 
something  which  men  of  his  years  and  opportunities  may 
reasonably  be  expected  to  do. 

It  is  hardly  necessary,  I  think,  to  speak  of  the  advan- 
tages of  such  an  arrangement.  The  values  to  students 
and  teachers  alike  are  clearly  obvious.  For  students,  the 
greater  freedom,  the  close  association  with  a  small  group  of 
men  of  like  interest,  the  immediate  acquaintance  with  and 
direction  by  a  small  number  of  teachers,  the  demand  upon 
one's  powers  which  comes  from  the  acceptance  of  a  definite 
task,  all  these  would  stimulate  as  well  as  enlighten  the 
student  mind.  For  the  teachers,  the  reduction  of  the 
amount  of  formal  instruction  would  be  a  gain.  There 
would  be  danger  that  much  time  would  be  taken  in  informal 
instruction  but  this  would  be  so  much  more  near  to  the 
teacher's  own  study  that  it  might  in  many  cases  be  of  help 
rather  than  a  hindrance  to  scholarly  pursuits.  Certainly 
there  would  be  more  of  genuine  satisfaction  in  it. 

The  real  question  as  to  such  a  plan  is  not,  Is  it  desirable? 
but,  Can  it  be  made  to  work?  And  the  question  is  not  one 
to  be  evaded.  But  my  own  conviction  is  very  strong  that 
the  thing  can  be  done.  I  am  certain  that  it  ought  to  be 
tried.  It  is  better  to  see  what  can  be  accomplished  along 
such  a  line  than  to  wait  ignobly  for  some  one  else  to  make 
the  attempt.  As  Socrates,  in  Plato's  Euthydemus,  when 
told  that  in  the  process  of  becoming  wise  a  man  must  lose 
his  ignorant  life,  offers  himself  for  sacrifice,  so  may  the 
college  do.  A  death  like  that  would  be  a  noble  ending, 
the  sort  of  ending  from  which  many  splendid  enterprises 
have  sprung. 

I  have  spoken  of  the  "major"  interest  in  the  Senior 
College.  It  seems  clear  that  this  interest  should  not  claim 
all  of  a  student's  working  time.  Until  our  plans  for  majors 
are  made  more  definite,  one  cannot  tell  just  what  the 


162  THE   LIBERAL   COLLEGE 

minor  arrangement  should  be.  I  would  suggest,  however, 
that  three  fourths  of  the  time  be  given  to  the  major  and 
one  fourth  reserved  for  the  minor  interests.  In  this  case 
it  would  be  necessary  to  provide  in  the  Senior  College 
courses  for  men  not  majoring  in  the  fields  in  which  they 
lie.  It  would  be  essential  also  to  provide  that  the  minors 
be  taken  outside  the  major  fields.  I  should  not  now  be 
willing  to  go  so  far  as  in  the  Report  of  1914,  requiring  all 
students  to  take,  in  junior  year,  the  history  of  thought  and 
American  history,  and  in  the  senior  year,  intellectual  and 
moral  problems.  But  it  would  seem  to  me  essential  that 
the  general  interest  which  controls  the  Junior  College 
should  not  be  wholly  put  aside.  At  least  we  should  main- 
tain a  balancing  of  interest  by  requiring  study  outside  the 
major  field.  It  would  not  do  to  let  our  special  study  drive 
away  the  fundamental  aim  which  we  would  make  it  serve, 
the  aim  of  so  knowing  and  feeling  our  human  life  and  men's 
interpretations  of  it  that  one  is  free  in  living  it.  We  must 
remain  in  general  apprehension  as  well  as  in  special  study 
a  liberal  college. 

CONCLUSION 

There  are  many  details  to  be  worked  out  before  such  a 
reorganization  as  I  have  proposed  could  be  adopted.  The 
most  fundamental  and  the  most  difficult  is  that  of  the 
establishing  of  Examining  Boards  wholly  or  in  part  distinct 
from  the  teaching  faculty.  This  separation  of  the  two 
functions  of  teaching  and  examining  is  not  in  one  sense 
essential  to  the  plan.  Clearly  the  Junior  and  Senior  Col- 
leges could  be  set  apart  each  with  its  own  peculiar  work, 
each  with  its  own  preliminary  and  final  examinations  — 
this  could  be  done  without  so  sharp  a  separation  between 
teaching  and  examining.  And  yet  the  separation  is  sug- 
gested by  the  plan  and  would  in  my  opinion  contribute 
largely  to  its  success.  How  far  are  we  willing  to  go  along 
this  line?  Are  we  ready  to  establish  two  Boards  of  Ex- 
aminers correlative  with  the  teaching  Faculty?  If  so, 
shall  the  Faculty  participate  in  the  appointment  of  such 


REORGANIZATION  —  COLLEGE  CURRICULUM    163 

Boards,  or  shall  it  be  wholly  in  the  hands  of  the  Trustees 
and  President?  This  is  a  set  of  issues  difficult  to  deal  with. 
They  are  to  be  met  for  the  sake  of  the  realizing  of  the  pur- 
pose of  the  college. 

As  I  close  this  discussion,  I  can  merely  call  attention  to 
important  questions  which  are  bound  up  with  the  project 
which  we  have  been  considering. 

The  required  studies  of  the  Junior  College  would  pre- 
sumably not  differ  radically  from  the  present  requirements 
of  the  first  and  second  years.  I  think  that  we  are  approach- 
ing settlement  of  the  questions  regarding  the  studies  of 
these  years. 

The  reorganization  proposed  would  have  great  effect 
upon  our  dealings  with  the  members  of  the  Faculty,  those 
now  with  us  as  well  as  others  to  be  appointed.  For  the 
trying  of  a  high  experiment  we  must  have  men  of  high 
ability  and  courage.  It  is  the  primary  task  of  the  college 
to  make  its  provision  for  teachers  conformable  to  the 
demands  upon  them. 

There  is  no  implication  in  the  plan  of  any  radical  change 
in  our  methods  of  admitting  students.  Such  changes 
might  be  suggested  by  later  experience  but  they  are  not 
apparent  now. 

Before  such  a  plan  could  be  put  into  operation  it  would 
be  essential  that  we  make  careful  study  of  like  attempts 
in  other  institutions  and  in  other  countries.  The  most 
radical  change  in  the  conduct  of  the  teaching  is  in  the 
system  of  majoring  in  the  Senior  College.  Here  we  must 
go  carefully  but  with  not  too  much  delay. 

To  sum  it  all  up,  may  I  say  that  the  cause  of  liberal 
education  is  crying  aloud  for  intelligent  and  resolute  sup- 
port. It  will  not  do  just  now  to  stand  on  the  defensive. 
Liberal  teaching  must  be  established.  If  this  is  to  be  done 
we  must  go  on;  we  are  just  emerging  from  a  period  of  vast 
confusion  and  distraction  in  educational  theory  and  prac- 
tice. It  is  a  time  for  knowing  what  you  propose  to  do  and 
how  it  is  to  be  done,  —  and  for  doing  it. 


A  FINAL  WORD 

EVERY  point  of  view  is  both  negative  and  affirmative. 
On  the  negative  side  it  is  a  protest  against  other 
opinions.     On  the  affirmative  side  it  is  a  realization 
of  its  own  meaning.     As  a  last  word,  then,  one  may  very 
properly  attempt  to  characterise  the  beliefs  which  one  abhors 
and  the  faith  upon  which  one  acts. 

The  underlying  antipathy  of  these  papers  is  directed 
against  specific  devices  in  education.  When  we  consider 
the  immense  expenditure  of  time  and  ability  devoted  to  our 
educational  machinery  how  shall  we  explain  the  general 
ineffectiveness  of  its  working  ?  The  only  explanation  which 
seems  to  fit  the  facts  is  that  our  various  specific  activities 
are  counteracting  and  nullifying  each  other.  The  cult  of 
the  specific  is  always  a  dangerous  one.  He  who  seeks  to 
cure  a  specific  evil  by  the  application  of  a  specific  remedy, 
without  understanding  both  evil  and  remedy  in  wider 
terms,  invites  disaster.  Such  cures  create  diseases  greater 
than  those  which  they  destroy.  It  has  been  recorded  of  a 
certain  man  that  after  all  his  evils  had  been  cleared  away, 
the  latter  state  of  that  man  was  worse  than  the  first.  If 
we  would  avoid  such  disastrous  remedies  as  this  we  must 
beware  of  mere  devices:  we  must  attempt  to  formulate 
our  task  and  our  procedure,  each  as  a  whole. 

On  the  positive  side  these  papers  have  contended  that 
if  one  would  know  how  knowledge  is  to  be  taught  then  one 
must  try  to  know  what  knowledge  is.  Just  as  a  teacher 
cannot  bring  a  pupil  near  to  learning  unless  he  is  near  to 
it  himself,  so  one  cannot  understand  the  teaching  process 
unless  one  understands  what  it  is  that  is  to  be  taught. 
Our  teaching  must  be  based  upon  a  comprehension  of  what 
learning  is,  of  the  nature  of  knowledge  and  of  wisdom  in 

164 


A  FINAL   WORD  165 

relation  to  human  living.  There  is  nothing  more  futile 
than  the  attempt  to  teach  liberal  culture  by  means  of 
teachers  who  are  not  liberally  educated.  It  is  equally 
futile  to  try  to  impart  understanding  of  human  life  and  of 
the  world  if  we  are  not  ourselves  striving  for  such  under- 
standing and  making  some  progress  toward  its  accomplish- 
ment. In  the  last  resort,  let  it  be  said  again,  it  is  the 
purpose  of  education  to  make  young  people  ready  for 
living  human  life  in  this  world  of  theirs.  In  order  to  do 
.that  we  must  try  to  understand  both  them  and  their  world. 
On  that  endeavor  we  may  found  our  attempt  at  Making 
Minds,  and  so  venture  to  enroll  ourselves  as  members  of  a 
Liberal  College. 


/O  *1  n 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara  College  Library 
Santa  Barbara,  California 


Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


•ul 


20m-8,'54(6472s4)476 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000908712     3 


